horse drawn farts where a big problem

People don't understand that if you have an idea and put this into a model to predict something then bingo you get what your model predicts - your idea.

quote:

Originally posted by et al:
British-born physicist Freeman Dyson has revealed three "heresies", two of which challenge the current scientific orthodoxy that anthropogenic carbon causes climate change.

Imagine you have 100 thermometers measuring the temperature outside your sealed bunker. 99 of the thermometers tell you the temperature is 33 degress, give or take a degree. 1 of the thermometers reads 16 degrees. What do you think? Do you reckon is probably hot outside, do you reckon it's probably cool, or do you throw your hands up in the air and say I have no idea, and you remain in your bunker.

Now imagine 100 climatologists. 99 of them tell you that global warming is a serious problem and the major cause of it is very likely, extrmemly likely or almost certainly down to human activity. 1 climatologist (actually an elderly physicist) says that global warming is not so serious and the human contribution to it, though it exists, is smaller than has been stated.

Where does the truth most probably lie? Near to what the 99 are saying, or near to what the 1 is saying?

quote:

Originally posted by et al:
People don't understand that if you have an idea and put this into a model to predict something then bingo you get what your model predicts - your idea.

What other method do you suggest? Perhaps a crystal ball, or tarot cards.

Climate models may not be perfect, but they are the best tool we have.

Leggy - your analogy is flawed.

Scentists can be bought to give the wrong reading

e.g. how many scientists went against the prevailing government lie that "Beef is safe"?

quote:

Y2k bug in Global Warming Propaganda

Anyway, the title of this thread is misleading. It's got nothing to do with the Y2K bug. And the only propaganda is FOX news picked up on this and led a misleading story.

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

quote:

Originally posted by et al:
British-born physicist Freeman Dyson has revealed three "heresies", two of which challenge the current scientific orthodoxy that anthropogenic carbon causes climate change.

Imagine you have 100 thermometers measuring the temperature outside your sealed bunker. 99 of the thermometers tell you the temperature is 33 degress, give or take a degree. 1 of the thermometers reads 16 degrees. What do you think? Do you reckon is probably hot outside, do you reckon it's probably cool, or do you throw your hands up in the air and say I have no idea, and you remain in your bunker.

Now imagine 100 climatologists. 99 of them tell you that global warming is a serious problem and the major cause of it is very likely, extrmemly likely or almost certainly down to human activity. 1 climatologist (actually an elderly physicist) says that global warming is not so serious and the human contribution to it, though it exists, is smaller than has been stated.

Where does the truth most probably lie? Near to what the 99 are saying, or near to what the 1 is saying?

Do you believe the emminent scientists who are standing up to be counted are broken in some way perhaps like your 16 degree thermometer? What you fail to see is that there are degrees of belief and any scientist could never say 100% sure on this one, I would think not many could say 20% sure, that doesn't mean they don't believe it most likely. It is a diservice to all to continually harp on about it being a done deal when it clearly is not. More research is welcome but in all directions not just biased research that is bound to provide more evidence in the hypothesised direction.

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Leggy - your analogy is flawed.

Scentists can be bought to give the wrong reading

That is a huge conspiracy you're suggesting, not to mention a huge insult to the scientific community. To make such a sweeping (and perhaps slanderous) statement you must have some pretty solid evidence. Not just suspicion. Solid evidence, in a Woodward & Berstein stylee. And I assume you know who made the payments, where the money came from. Perhaps you have minutes of the meetings where the scientists got together with the politicians and colluded on this great hoax.

quote:

et al said:
People don't understand that if you have an idea and put this into a model to predict something then bingo you get what your model predicts - your idea.

No, computer models do not work like that. Certainly you get GIGO, but the input is the empirical data we have around us. The models are run from the early 20th Century in order to 'predict' the climate to date. This is used to see how accurately they work, whether the balances of effect are correct, and hence gives confidence in their future predictions. Similarly, models from 10 years ago or so were not that far off in predicting the temp rise to today.

quote:

What you fail to see is that there are degrees of belief and any scientist could never say 100% sure on this one, I would think not many could say 20% sure,

If you knew anything about this topic you would know that scientists have said that they are 90% sure that humans are responsible for recent warming. Google the latest IPCC report.

quote:

Originally posted by et al:
Do you believe the emminent scientists who are standing up to be counted are broken in some way perhaps like your 16 degree thermometer?

I never said that thermometer was broken.

quote:

What you fail to see is that there are degrees of belief and any scientist could never say 100% sure on this one, I would think not many could say 20% sure, that doesn't mean they don't believe it most likely.

Not at all. The probability factor was exactly what I was trying to make clear in my analogy. You never get 100% certainties in science. The IPCC report stated that the major cause of global warming was "very likely" human activity, where "very likely" means with 90% certainty. Many scientists were critical of the IPCC report because they felt it wasn't definite enough, that it should have said extrmely likely (95%) or almost certainly (99%), but as you know there are a few scientists who are less certain than 90%, so that was a conservative average.

That being the case, that climatologists are 90% certain, and we, not being climatologists, can't really expect to get to grips with such a complex subject, one these people have been studying their entire working lives, we have to act like a jury presented with a number of expert witnesses, assessing their credibility, looking at the numbers putting forward each view, and then we have to make a judgement based on the balance of probability.

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Leggy - your analogy is flawed.

How about this one then:

You're blind, but somehow you've landed yourself a job as the school bus driver. You're driving along, taking the kids to school - there are 100 if them in the bus - and you're approaching a junction with some traffic lights. You know the road well so you know the junction is approaching, but being blind you don't know what colour the lights are, so you ask the kids. 99 of them shout out "Red! STOP!!" (maybe a couple of them are shouting "Red and amber") and one kid, sitting st the back of the bus, is shouting out "Green! Keep going!!" (Being blind you have very good hearing and can tell precisly how many kids are saying each thing.)

So what do you do? Do you play it safe and hit the brakes, or do you risk it and keep on going?

quote:

Originally posted by welshwarlock:

quote:

et al said:
People don't understand that if you have an idea and put this into a model to predict something then bingo you get what your model predicts - your idea.

No, computer models do not work like that. Certainly you get GIGO, but the input is the empirical data we have around us. The models are run from the early 20th Century in order to 'predict' the climate to date. This is used to see how accurately they work, whether the balances of effect are correct, and hence gives confidence in their future predictions. Similarly, models from 10 years ago or so were not that far off in predicting the temp rise to today.

quote:

What you fail to see is that there are degrees of belief and any scientist could never say 100% sure on this one, I would think not many could say 20% sure,

If you knew anything about this topic you would know that scientists have said that they are 90% sure that humans are responsible for recent warming. Google the latest IPCC report.

As you say if they are data driven then there is no argument as long as extrapolation is not too far and the usual assumtions underlying the models are not strained. Like the sea level example the IPCC used the data didn't actually show a trend but then some 'fiddles' were introduced, low and behold there was a 2-3 mm per year trend - doesn't sound empirical to me. Your style is too confrontational for me, no oppo is allowed in the new religion so I bow out.

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Leggy - your analogy is flawed.

How about this one then:

You're blind, but somehow you've landed yourself a job as the school bus driver. You're driving along, taking the kids to school - there are 100 if them in the bus - and you're approaching a junction with some traffic lights. You know the road well so you know the junction is approaching, but being blind you don't know what colour the lights are, so you ask the kids. 99 of them shout out "Red! STOP!!" (maybe a couple of them are shouting "Red and amber") and one kid, sitting st the back of the bus, is shouting out "Green! Keep going!!" (Being blind you have very good hearing and can tell precisly how many kids are saying each thing.)

So what do you do? Do you play it safe and hit the brakes, or do you risk it and keep on going?

You keep on refusing to accept the facts - scientists are afraid to go against governments.

SO - how many scientists went against the prevailing government lie that "Beef is safe"?

quote:

Originally posted by et al:
As you say if they are data driven then there is no argument as long as extrapolation is not too far and the usual assumtions underlying the models are not strained.

Indeed. The thing you have to bear in mind is that you do not hear the results of these models from the scientists, you hear it from the media. While the scientists will say something like "there is a 90% chance of a 1 deg rise, and a 20% chance of a 5 deg rise 20yrs later" The media will simply report "SHOCK!! 5 deg rise in 20yrs we'll all DIE!" If you read what the climatologists write themselves it is full of the correct caveats and confidence levels.

quote:

Like the sea level example the IPCC used the data didn't actually show a trend but then some 'fiddles' were introduced, low and behold there was a 2-3 mm per year trend - doesn't sound empirical to me.

Link? Things like moving averages and other statistical techniques are not 'fiddles'

quote:

Your style is too confrontational for me, no oppo is allowed in the new religion so I bow out.

Sorry, but there are a lot of people around who endlessly repeat the same myths and lies about global warming, I get a bit tired of it, but I don't think its right to leave such fallacies unanswered.

I am nobody to disallow you from disagreeing, but if what you say is nonsensical, fallacious or seemingly malicious, don't expect not to say so, frankly.

quote:

You keep on refusing to accept the facts - scientists are afraid to go against governments.

The scientists convinced the govts that GW was a problem, not the other way around. Climatologists have been talking about CO2 levels and global warming since the 1980s (the IPCC was set up in 1988). Govts have only recently come round to that thinking after they realised that it was a vote winner (witness Chameleon Dave trying to cheat everyone into thinking he's Greeeeeeen - urghh).

quote:

Originally posted by welshwarlock:

quote:

You keep on refusing to accept the facts - scientists are afraid to go against governments.

The scientists convinced the govts that GW was a problem, not the other way around. Climatologists have been talking about CO2 levels and global warming since the 1980s (the IPCC was set up in 1988). Govts have only recently come round to that thinking after they realised that it was a vote winner (witness Chameleon Dave trying to cheat everyone into thinking he's Greeeeeeen - urghh).

Fair point - I was not questioning who raised G.W.

But since the government has picked it up for extra tax raising purposes - the vitriol that is poured on dissenters is palpable.

Exactly like the same is done on dissenters of Iraq invasion/occupation e.g. "You are unpatriotic" compared to "You don't care about the planet and the fate of our children".

quote:

Originally posted by welshwarlock:
I am nobody to disallow you from disagreeing, but if what you say is nonsensical, fallacious or seemingly malicious, don't expect not to say so, frankly.

Unless you can say anything is 100% sure how can you say opposition is all those things? Is that malicious then? The myth has been perpetuated by people shouting loud, I'm afraid you cannot use myth for the absence of something. Now the reference, it's the Swedish guy who was sea level expert for the IPCC in 2006 who onbjected to that report. He also pointed out that no authors were sea level experts. But anyway I'm out of here it's like AGW denial is becoming an offence.

quote:

Originally posted by et al:
But anyway I'm out of here it's like AGW denial is becoming an offence.

AGW denial isnot an offence, usually just offensive.

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Leggy - your analogy is flawed.

Scentists can be bought to give the wrong reading

e.g. how many scientists went against the prevailing government lie that "Beef is safe"?

I don't see what's this got to do with climate scientists.

How many denialist went with this story knowing full well it was misleading?

So you decided to lump all scientists as unscrupulious conspirators when they sprout a message you don't like?

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Fair point - I was not questioning who raised G.W.

But since the government has picked it up for extra tax raising purposes - the vitriol that is poured on dissenters is palpable.

Exactly like the same is done on dissenters of Iraq invasion/occupation e.g. "You are unpatriotic" compared to "You don't care about the planet and the fate of our children".

It's getting to that point when most of the science being used to attack AGW is either wrong or out of date. And if that doesn't work, the new practice is to sew confusion into IPCC's and GW supporters message.

The title of this thread is typifies it!

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Leggy - your analogy is flawed.

Scentists can be bought to give the wrong reading

e.g. how many scientists went against the prevailing government lie that "Beef is safe"?

I don't see what's this got to do with climate scientists.

How many denialist went with this story knowing full well it was misleading?

So you decided to lump all scientists as unscrupulious conspirators when they sprout a message you don't like?

Err.. never said they are "unscrupulious conspirators" - just that they keep their mouth shut when funding is involved or their sponsors have government contracts or even if they don't want to seem 'way out there' with current 'thinking'.

So - how many scientists went against the prevailing government lie that "Beef is safe"?

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Fair point - I was not questioning who raised G.W.

But since the government has picked it up for extra tax raising purposes - the vitriol that is poured on dissenters is palpable.

Exactly like the same is done on dissenters of Iraq invasion/occupation e.g. "You are unpatriotic" compared to "You don't care about the planet and the fate of our children".

It's getting to that point when most of the science being used to attack AGW is either wrong or out of date. And if that doesn't work, the new practice is to sew confusion into IPCC's and GW supporters message.

The title of this thread is typifies it!

I have little doubt that GW is happening - but that doesn't mean I (and they) could be wrong - as has been proven on other occassions.

I just question the vitriol and the so-called 'findings' e.g. if happening how can they be sure that it is all down to man-made CO2 (not methane) etc.