Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

cybercoma · October 2, 2012

No. What I shrug off are the people who claim that the way to deal with the hypothetical "danger" is to introduce ineffective anti-CO2 regulations.

The problem in the debate are people like you that refuse to separate the policy choices from the science.

Because it is NOT happening faster than anticipated. If anything, the actual rate of warming is at or below the bottom end of the predicted range. People who claim that it is happening faster are simply lying to rationalize their own positions.

Yeah... you're not shrugging it off at all.

TimG · October 2, 2012

Yeah... you're not shrugging it off at all.

In this case I am simply pointed out that eyeball made an assertion that is NOT supported by the science. It eyeball that is ignoring the science in favour of his alarmist agenda.

You need to get over yourself and stop assuming that something must be true because some alarmist mouthpiece said something in the media.

Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

cybercoma · October 2, 2012

In this case I am simply pointed out that eyeball made an assertion that is NOT supported by the science. It eyeball that is ignoring the science in favour of his alarmist agenda.

You need to get over yourself and stop assuming that something must be true because some alarmist mouthpiece said something in the media.

Uh... 85% of scientists say it's a problem a moderate to severe problem. The only mouthpiece I see is the one that's twisting himself up like a pretzel to shrug off the concerns that scientists have.

TimG · October 2, 2012

Uh... 85% of scientists say it's a problem a moderate to severe problem.

You are engaging the pathetic alarmist "bait and switch" tactic. 85% of scientists may have agree that it is a "moderate" problem but that provides NO support for eyeball's assertion that warming is now happening "faster than expected". Each assertion needs to be judged on its own merits. I realize that you don't want to argue each assertion on its own merit because you would have to admit that a lot of the alarm claptrap in the media is not supported by the science. Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

waldo · October 2, 2012

First...
Second...

I suspect you will find my claims incredible because as an engineer you cannot imagine that anyone who describes themselves as a scientist behaving in such a manner.

at the end of your nattering day, as I've highlighted several times over, the single-biggest 'win' for the guy you parrot, for your guy McIntyre and his lappers, would be to formally and successfully challenge the papers in question... most particularly, this reflects upon the profiles and iconic placement of (some of) the small segment of associated scientists and the subject matter in question. The impact and gains that could be realized by denialists in presuming to formally refute and dispatch the papers would be played out for all denialists could squeeze from the effort. Quite literally, it would be played up to the nth degree; it would rattle about for years through the denialsphere; it would be pushed forward into the mainstream by the usual suspects and played out as another instrument attempting to diminish the impacts of AGW/ACC. After these many years, the very fact no formal scientific challenge has ever been undertaken and the very fact McIntyre won't extend beyond the controlled confines of his blog, says it all. Your favoured blogScience does not rule! :lol: Like I've said, like I'll continue to say, "what's your boy McIntyre waiting for"? (/snarc)

and yes, here you are again with your described 'incredible claims and scientists behaving badly'! How its helped steer you away from actually openly looking at/interpreting the science... to your stated position to, as you say, "oppose any and all actions no matter how reasonable until the scientific establishment cleans up its act. Like most boycotts it will likely change nothing but I am a least doing what I can". You're... "doing what you can do"! Oh my! Yes, most definitely, we've read variants of your 'good little soldier' routine many times in the past... why, twice in recent weeks just within this thread:

Actually, I changed from generally accepting the science to a skeptic because I was disgusted by the fanaticism coming from various pro-alarmist groups - some of them supposedly respectable scientific sources.

ya, we've heard this same ole song and dance before... like I've said in the past, even if we accepted all your blundering bluster against your selected target crew... those individuals would number a scant few in relation to the thousands of world-wide scientists you conveniently tar & feather with your broad brush... with those, your few selected target individuals, having little comparative impact on the greater whole. Your fake outrage is a self-serving matter of convenience - nothing more, nothing less.

I used to more moderate in my views - until I discovered the rampant corruption in the scientific establishment. Since the scientific establishment has shown no interest in standing up for good science I take the position that I will oppose any and all actions no matter how reasonable until the scientific establishment cleans up its act. Like most boycotts it will likely change nothing but I am a least doing what I can.

there is no rampant corruption in the scientific establishment. As has been pointed out to you, several times over, even if one accepted every one of your imagined, wild-assed charges of corruption that you regularly assert, your targeted denier campaign involves a most select, isolated and smallish complement of scientists... the smallest of small subsets out of tens of thousands of active world-wide scientists. How special of you to tag the entire scientific establishment with your broad and sweeping charges.

talk about your delusions of grandeur! You have the gall to state you're, "going to oppose all actions... no matter how reasonable... until the scientific establishment cleans up its act"!
You are a good little soldier, aren't you?

cybercoma · October 2, 2012

You are engaging the pathetic alarmist "bait and switch" tactic. 85% of scientists may have agree that it is a "moderate" problem but that provides NO support for eyeball's assertion that warming is now happening "faster than expected". Each assertion needs to be judged on its own merits. I realize that you don't want to argue each assertion on its own merit because you would have to admit that a lot of the alarm claptrap in the media is not supported by the science.

All of your blabbering about the rate of change is completely meaningless when 85% of scientists say that climate change is a problem. You can keep trying to change the focus of the argument all you want. All of it comes down to one fact: climate change is a PROBLEM.

cybercoma · October 2, 2012

Tim, if you had any honesty in your convictions, you would simply recognize that 85% of scientists say it's a problem and stand proudly (read: stupidly) behind your assertion that sweet nothing should be done about it because you don't want to hurt businesses.

TimG · October 2, 2012

But the reality is a lot of the times when you are doing very difficult experiments that do have a lot of noise and a lot of things that can go wrong, and you know that there is a real physical mechanism underneath that should be giving a certain result

Except in the case of proxies they know the mechanism but they have no way to know the actual magnitude of temperatures in the past. This means they are selecting those data points that give them the past temperatures they want to see. It quite different from selecting those results which give you the expected results when measured by instruments you trust.

Scientists usually compete for the same funding, and love to show each other to be wrong so they can make their own group look better in comparison.

Except the funding bodies are all alarmist and have little interest in funding contrarian views.

And in fact papers like Tijander which try to extract correlations out of horribly contaminated data with terrible signal to noise ratios just seem like so much wasted effort.

The reason these proxies attract so much attention is it is not possible to claim that the current warming is mostly due to CO2 unless you can demonstrate that natural variability in the past is low. Extracting a signal from proxy noise is even more difficult when the exact magnitude of the signal is what matters. Yet that is what climate scientists are constantly trying to do. Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

waldo · October 2, 2012

You are engaging the pathetic alarmist "bait and switch" tactic.

so... you found a single survey you like... and you're running with it! I won't bother to attempt to confirm the veracity of the survey; however, I do note in a short cursory check, that your linked survey's author was a paid consultant for Fox News at the same time his organization brought forward a conservative group funded study that held to, "Fox News Channel's evening coverage being more "balanced" than that of the broadcast networks". :lol:

TimG · October 2, 2012

Tim, if you had any honesty in your convictions, you would simply recognize that 85% of scientists say it's a problem and stand proudly (read: stupidly) behind your assertion that sweet nothing should be done about it because you don't want to hurt businesses.

You are a gross hypocrite. If you really believed that CO2 is a problem you would be arguing that all countries need to reduce their CO2 emissions - even if they are currently poor. But you don't argue that. You want developing countries to increase their emissions as fast as they like because - to you - the social and economic needs of people in developing countries are more important than the hypothetical CO2 problem.

You really have no business criticizing someone else for taking the same position.

BTW: my position is we don't have the technology to do much about emissions and that technology may never exist therefore adaption is the only real policy choice. This is a view that does not conflict with any scientists opinion of the effect of CO2 on climate.

Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

waldo · October 2, 2012

The reason these proxies attract so much attesion is it is not possible to claim that the current warming is mostly due to CO2 unless you can demonstrate that natural variability in the past is low.

:lol: is this you arguing that past climate change has a strong climate sensitivity? Or what... what's your point?

waldo · October 2, 2012

You are a gross hypocrite. If you really believed that CO2 is a problem you would be arguing that all countries need to reduce their CO2 emissions - even if they are currently poor. But you don't argue that. You want developing countries to increase their emissions as fast as they like because - to you - the social and economic needs of people in developing countries are more important than the hypothetical CO2 problem.
You really have no business criticizing someone else for talk the same position.

non sequitur! By the by, putting aside your hand-waving, just who do you claim is arguing for a going forward position where 'developing countries' are not expected to reduce emissions?

WWWTT · October 2, 2012

Do you have any idea what you're even arguing?

Your claim that scientists are not alarmists.

WWWTT

waldo · October 2, 2012

BTW: my position is we don't have the technology to do much about emissions and that technology may never exist therefore adaption is the only real policy choice. This is a view that does not conflict with any scientists opinion of the effect of CO2 on climate.

yes - we've heard much of your 'Adapt-R-Us only' position. The position where you never actually qualify your implied technology gaps, particularly in terms of identifying said gaps against/within staged mitigation phasing; i.e., short-term, mid-term, long-term mitigation phasing.

waldo · October 2, 2012

Because it is NOT happening faster than anticipated. If anything, the actual rate of warming is at or below the bottom end of the predicted range. People who claim that it is happening faster are simply lying to rationalize their own positions.

citation request

waldo · October 2, 2012

Except the funding bodies are all alarmist and have little interest in funding contrarian views.

you're on a roll. You mean all those right-wing stink tanks have no money? What about the Koch Brothers... oh, right... sorry - I guess the outcome on the Koch funded Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study didn't quite go their way... did it? But, that shouldn't diminish the Koch funding bandwagon, should it?

all those funding bodies keeping the poor denier man down! :lol:

WWWTT · October 2, 2012

All of your blabbering about the rate of change is completely meaningless when 85% of scientists say that climate change is a problem. You can keep trying to change the focus of the argument all you want. All of it comes down to one fact: climate change is a PROBLEM.

This a logical statement.

However,anyone who understands how structures are built and why they are built and the cost of building would tell you the same thing.

Every structure built,regardless of occupancy,should be built to a set standard that reflects local weather,climate,seismologic conditions and ground/earth composition (there could be other factors of influence)

And some countries/regions have higher more costly standards than others.

When a big influence of design changes such as climate and or weather,then this could lead to billions if not trillions in destruction of structures and human life!

But to actually say that it is human activity of using/exploiting fossil fuel that is responsible,how many scientists agree?

WWWTT

cybercoma · October 2, 2012

You are a gross hypocrite. If you really believed that CO2 is a problem you would be arguing that all countries need to reduce their CO2 emissions - even if they are currently poor. But you don't argue that. You want developing countries to increase their emissions as fast as they like because - to you - the social and economic needs of people in developing countries are more important than the hypothetical CO2 problem.

You really have no business criticizing someone else for taking the same position.

BTW: my position is we don't have the technology to do much about emissions and that technology may never exist therefore adaption is the only real policy choice. This is a view that does not conflict with any scientists opinion of the effect of CO2 on climate.

Nowhere did I say anything about CO₂, Tim. Nowhere did I say anything about developing countries either.

What I did say is that 85% of scientists view climate change as a problem. So why don't you show a little integrity and admit that it's a problem, but you don't think anything can or should be done about it.

waldo · October 2, 2012

Knowing that the answer does not reflect well on the world's commitments, he's decided his best defence is to angrily demand citations showing that results have been disappointing.

you really need to step up and answer the direct question put to previously, several times now - the one you repeatedly ignored. Again, you made statements speaking to the need for an emissions treaty... one with 'forceful teeth' (your words, or my paraphrase of). As I stated, to me, this obviously has you acknowledging the need for emissions reduction. I asked how you could acknowledge this point/need, yet allow yourself to shit upon the separate secondary route intended to address the outcome of what you acknowledge. Why do you continue to take utter glee in presuming to denigrate the climate fund? Just answer the question - once and for all. Just answer it.l. Just answer it.

**** bump ****

rsvp :lol:

TimG · October 2, 2012

Nowhere did I say anything about CO2, Tim. Nowhere did I say anything about developing countries either.

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.

What I did say is that 85% of scientists view climate change as a problem. So why don't you show a little integrity and admit that it's a problem, but you don't think anything can or should be done about it.

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. Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

Wayward Son · October 2, 2012

But to actually say that it is human activity of using/exploiting fossil fuel that is responsible,how many scientists agree?

According to the very survey in question:

- "Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring"

- "Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming"

WWWTT · October 2, 2012

According to the very survey in question:

- "Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring"

- "Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming"

Thank you.

Some here were implying that the number was around 100%

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

WWWTT

wyly · October 2, 2012

According to the very survey in question:

- "Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring"

- "Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming"

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...

Edited October 2, 2012 by wyly

wyly · October 2, 2012

Thank you.

Some here were implying that the number was around 100%

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

WWWTT

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

cybercoma · October 2, 2012

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.

Sorry, Tim, but the dishonest quibbling is coming from you. 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.