Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[TimG]

a survey of actual Climatologists experts on the issue is 97% believe human-induced warming is occurring...if you have cardiac health issues you consult a oncologist not a podiatrist...

ROTFL. The survey I quoted IS the infamous "97% of scientists say..." survey. You are criticizing the same survey you are quoting! Do some research for once.

BTW what the survey actually said was:

Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence.

But I guess truth and accuracy is not an issue when you have a propaganda war to win. Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[GostHacked]

again, you are not being insulted no matter how hard you feign indignity. I noted your propensity to turn to personalization, to attempt to marginalize... if you recall, I described it as a standard ploy by deniers, like you, who have nothing else to turn to. You certainly can't interpret the science - that's absolutely clear. You can also give up your now repeated statements on 'anger issues'... I certainly am not angry at you/anyone - I simply refuse to, 'suffer denier fools gladly'! Note: this is not an insult - check idioms!

Your plethora of pet names for everyone clearly shows how insulting you really are. If you can address the post and not the poster, then we can make some progress. But as I stated in other threads like this, even if you are completely correct, being an ass to other posters is not going to get the results you are looking for.

I've had the displeasure of tolerating your insults, but I think that is about time it stops. I've asked you in other threads to stop those insults, and well you no longer throw as many insults at me. Baby steps I guess.

So when you are prepared to address the topic like an adult instead of some bratty teenager then we can make some progress.

We get some info and 3 pages of back and forth insults until the thread gets back on the topic in which it quickly derails again.

Grow up.

[WIP]

No. But I know your type. I have not encountered anyone who criticizes people for taking a skeptical view and also believes that developing countries should not be given a free ride because of lefty "social justice" concerns. So if I was wrong and you do not hold those view then speak up and I will make a note. If I am right and you do hold those views then you are engaging in dishonest quibbling.

See, this is where you and that small handful of scientists who share your views, show us that the denial position starts from a political ideological position of libertarian economic theory and a selfish disregard for everyone outside our borders.

The first point that needs to be made is that the extra carbon added to the atmosphere over the last 150 years has not been put there by China and India! It has come from North America and Europe, so the West has to deal with those legacy costs.

Also, it's not lefties who have caused the huge spike in carbon emissions in India and the Far East - it's you rightwingers, who demanded open borders (for money and products only) and outsourced more and more industrial production to countries that have rock bottom wages and virtually no health and safety regulations. The increase in carbon emissions in China have been added to the pot by those on the right who advocated "free trade" and claimed outsourcing labour-intensive industries to the third world was the libertarian way to raise their standards of living. So let's get it straight to start with who is to blame for creating this mess in the first place.

I thought I was clear in the past. It is a hypothetical problem and if it was feasible to eliminate CO2 emissions then I would not oppose such efforts even it is a hypothetical problem. The issue is I don't believe it is feasible and I have no interest in pretending to do something if I know that "something" is an ineffective waste of resources.

Did you ever consider that the natural biosphere of planet earth is trying to eliminate that extra carbon? If you check the monthly numbers provided from the Mauna Loa Observatory, you would notice that CO2 levels rise and fall during the year. Part of the reason for declines is declines in industrial output and transportation, but part of the declines in the annual cycle are likely due to the world's oceans, photosynthesizing plants and the effects of rock weathering, that reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Part of the solution would be an obvious one - reduce the amount of carbon dumped into the atmosphere through human activity...but that seems to threaten ideological beliefs like "markets are self-correcting" and forget about those brown people who live on the other side of the world!

[WWWTT]

ya a survey of many from very different disciplines, meteorologists included in that survey study short term weather events not long term...and petroleum geologists would be include in that survey what do you suppose their bias would be, what expertise do they have in agriculture/food production as a result of climate change?

a survey of actual Climatologists experts on the issue is 97% believe human-induced warming is occurring...if you have cardiac health issues you consult a cardiologist

not a podiatrist...

And who do you think funds the climatologists?

In fact,part of the reason this thread has become so polarized is because there is no neutral body with deep pockets that is funding any research.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

And who do you think funds the climatologists?

In fact,part of the reason this thread has become so polarized is because there is no neutral body with deep pockets that is funding any research.

WWWTT

In Canada? A large portion of funding comes from NSERC.

[WWWTT]

no doubt in the future if you have heart issues you'll be consulting a podiatrist...

Say that to the elderly woman in Brampton hospital who had the wrong leg amputated several years ago.

Nothing wrong with a little healthy skepticism.

WWWTT

[Wayward Son]

Thank you.

Some here were implying that the number was around 100%

There will always be a small percentage of sceintists who disagree with anything. You can find a small percentage of scientists who are creationists and reject the theory of evolution. That doesn't mean anyone should take what that small percentage of nutcases have to say as likely to be correct. A small number of people who are educated in a certain field are always going to take the opposite view from what the evidence shows. Scientists are humans as well, can be swayed by things other than evidence: such as money and pride. It does not surprise me at all that people like Spencer, Christy and Lindzen when shown to wrong simply switched to another tact to support their initial position. It is human nature. That 5% of the scientists in the survey hold your position should make you reflect on your position, especially as you have no expertise in the area in question.

Oh and by the way does "personally believe = scientifically proven"?

What do you even mean? Science can't prove the theory of gravity, that is not how science works.

[WWWTT]

In Canada? A large portion of funding comes from NSERC.

Government cutbacks now make sense doesn't it?

WWWTT

[Wayward Son]

Say that to the elderly woman in Brampton hospital who had the wrong leg amputated several years ago.

Someone getting the wrong leg amputated says nothing about reliability of the medical science that determined that a leg needed to be amputated in the first place.

[WIP]

And who do you think funds the climatologists?

In fact,part of the reason this thread has become so polarized is because there is no neutral body with deep pockets that is funding any research.

WWWTT

Since the Harper Government has started an ideological war with scientists who do research that conflicts with their pro-business agenda, I think we can assume that a climatologist who is sounding the alarm bells about global warming is not following a money trail - like oil company geologists; because their research funding is being directly threatened by the Government for providing information that the Government (and the oil industry) doesn't want.

[WWWTT]

There will always be a small percentage of sceintists who disagree with anything. You can find a small percentage of scientists who are creationists and reject the theory of evolution. That doesn't mean anyone should take what that small percentage of nutcases have to say as likely to be correct. A small number of people who are educated in a certain field are always going to take the opposite view from what the evidence shows. Scientists are humans as well, can be swayed by things other than evidence: such as money and pride. It does not surprise me at all that people like Spencer, Christy and Lindzen when shown to wrong simply switched to another tact to support their initial position. It is human nature. That 5% of the scientists in the survey hold your position should make you reflect on your position, especially as you have no expertise in the area in question.

And where does that 84% of scientists get their funding?

WWWTT

Edited October 2, 2012 by WWWTT

[wyly]

ROTFL. The survey I quoted IS the infamous "97% of scientists say..." survey. You are criticizing the same survey you are quoting! Do some research for once.

BTW what the survey actually said was:

But I guess truth and accuracy is not an issue when you have a propaganda war to win.

:lol: liar! it's you who is twisting the fact tim, where did I criticize anything??? it was you that has problem with "truth and accuracy is not an issue when you have a propaganda war to win." by omitting the climatologist results...the irony/hypocrisy/dishonesty of the denierworld is appalling...

maybe tim you can find a survey of podiatrists opinions on cardiology, better yet climate change...hey it's beginning to sound like the Oregon Petition

[Wayward Son]

Government cutbacks now make sense doesn't it?

WWWTT

This does not address the original question. You said that there was no neutral body funding the research. Cybercoma stated that NSERC is a major funder. To me that means that you either have to show that NSERC is not neutral, or admit that there is at least one neutral body funding this research.

[cybercoma]

Government cutbacks now make sense doesn't it?

WWWTT

Why? So they can get their funding from oil companies?

[TimG]

it's you who is twisting the fact tim, where did I criticize anything???

Go back and read your post. That is exactly what you were doing. You were attempting to argue that a survey of "climate scientists" would produce higher numbers when it is simply not true. The "survey" that you thought you were quoting was the survey that you were criticizing.

[WWWTT]

What do you even mean? Science can't prove the theory of gravity, that is not how science works.

Whao buddy you think I'm going to let a broad swipe statement like that go unnoticed!?!?!

Just because science can not prove gravity does not mean that all science is based on Earth-Wind-Fire-Water!

Can science prove flight and lift?

Yes it can(physics)

But thanks for pointing out that science is limited and should not be always taken as some unquestionable word.

WWWTT

[WIP]

Someone getting the wrong leg amputated says nothing about reliability of the medical science that determined that a leg needed to be amputated in the first place.

It's apples and oranges anyway! If I was going to criticize the medical establishment, it would be for the way modern medicine treats the human body the way a mechanic fixes a car...as if our bodies are just a set of component parts that need to be treated with drugs until one of them needs to be replaced. Little real attention is given to preventative medicine, because that requires an all-encompassing approach that goes beyond what doctors and the medical establishment does. It's likely that 70% of chronic illness is preventable effects caused by what has to be described as the downside of modern life, especially for lower income people who can't afford good quality food, breathe dirty air, have to deal with high levels of stress, lack of adequate sleep, lack of exercise...would just about cover the majority of reasons why people are getting sick and living in poor health for the last 20 or 30 years of their lives. And now that our population is aging, the costs of the traditional approach of dealing with the cancers, diabetes and heart disease after the fact, are reaching levels that will bankrupt our society whether we have public health care or for-profit insurance companies running it.....now, I'll wait for some climate change denier to provide me the link between the evils of our medical and pharmaceutical establishment with their global warming conspiracy theory!

[Wayward Son]

And where does that 84% of scientists get their funding?

Lots of places. Almost all of which have no influence over the result. If you want to claim otherwise than feel free to actually contribute some evidence. However, there is a big difference between scientists getting funding to do research that has no strings attached (as we also saw happening with the BEST funding from the Koch brothers), and scientists who are conducting NO research yet are being funded by industry to promote industry views (such as Fred Singer, who has been a mouthpiece for multiple industries such as tobacco and asbestoes, and now of course, climate change without having actually conducted any science himself in decades).

[TimG]

Here you admit that you're engaging in both strawman and red-herring fallacies. You've constructed an imaginary position for me that's completely unrelated to the point I'm making and are arguing against that.

Yet that is EXACTLY what you did in the post that I was replying to. I don't hold the views you claimed and I made it very clear what my views are. Yet in your case you refuse to answer the question: was I right or wrong in my assumption that you believe that developing countries should be given a free pass on emissions?

Hypothetically speaking, you just can't help dismissing the reality of the scientific observations can you?

I believe very much in scientific observations. The trouble is you won't find any that support the claim that CO2 is a clear and present danger. That claim requires computer models which are hypotheses - NOT observations.

This is another example of the 'bait and switch' tactic used by alarmists. You want to argue that since we have observed warming that means the climate models must also be correct. But observed warming does nothing but show the climate models might be correct.

Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[WWWTT]

This does not address the original question. You said that there was no neutral body funding the research. Cybercoma stated that NSERC is a major funder. To me that means that you either have to show that NSERC is not neutral, or admit that there is at least one neutral body funding this research.

NSERC is government,therefore not neutral because we have a conservative government.

Don't like the message,get rid of the messenger until the messenger gives you a message you like.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Whao buddy you think I'm going to let a broad swipe statement like that go unnoticed!?!?!

Just because science can not prove gravity does not mean that all science is based on Earth-Wind-Fire-Water!

Can science prove flight and lift?

Yes it can(physics)

But thanks for pointing out that science is limited and should not be always taken as some unquestionable word.

WWWTT

Uh... science can't ever prove a theory. It builds up evidence to support it, such that the preponderance of data makes it highly unlikely that the negative of the theory is true. However, nothing is ever proven as absolute.

Science is simply a tool for explaining natural phenomena.

So when you have a better explanation for global climate change than the one offered by scientists, perhaps you will be taken seriously as a denier. As it stands, all of the deniers' explanations are less adequate (if not wholly inadequate in some cases) than the existing ones.

[cybercoma]

NSERC is government,therefore not neutral because we have a conservative government.

You have no idea how NSERC works and therefore are taking a completely uninformed position on it. You're claiming NSERC is bias, but you really have no idea whatsoever who they are or how they operate.

This is the problem with the internet as mode of communication in a postmodern era. People believe all opinions are valid.

[TimG]

To me that means that you either have to show that NSERC is not neutral, or admit that there is at least one neutral body funding this research.

Sorry. I disagree with your premise entirely. Government funding bodies have their own biases based on a desire to maintain political support for funding of science. This does not mean they follow the government of the day but it does mean they have an incentive to exaggerate problems in order to justify more research dollars. Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[madmax]

Yet in your case you refuse to answer the question: was I right or wrong in my assumption that you believe that developing countries should be given a free pass on emissions?

I think its NUTS for Developing countries which are receiving BILLIONS in Foreign Capital to Indusrialize, are allowed to do so without the "STRICT" environmental standards held here.

Why should we close down operations in Canada that have 50 years of progress and battles to implement higher environmental standards, only to disband these operations and open in oountries like Mexico or China and such.

[WWWTT]

Lots of places. Almost all of which have no influence over the result.

As far as climate research goes,you're going to have to provide a reliable link if you want to convince me.

WWWTT