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?
If the 99 thermometers were networked to a dodgy computer program devised by the government and showed it would be 150 degrees outside and your known and trusted one gave a sensible reading I'd have to say I'd trust the one I was familiar with.
Your suggestion then is that these 99% of scientists are giving out false information because some government is telling them to mislead the public. A huge conspiracy theory there. Let's see the evidence. You cannot make an accusation like that based on some mere suspicion. You must produce sound evidence.
You should also take into account the fact, pointed out on this thread, that it was the scientists who brought up the global warming issue in the first place and persuaded the governments it was a serious issue. So evidence for your conspiracy has to go back to the 1980s, to before the IPCC was set up in 1988.
quote:
Actually your example shows you don't know the fist thing about statistics. Basically what you are saying is that, if say one has an error rate of say 10% then the chance of two being in error is 1%, the chance of three is 0.1% etc. This only occurs if they are independent, if there is a common link this does not occur. Say they were all from the same manufacturing batch, then you have common dependence.
You're making those calculations, not me. I just gave you the example, and in the example it was not stated whether the thermometers were linked to some matrix-type computer that was controlling their readings, all bar you one lone thermometer. That's something you don't know - as in the real world. However much you might keep shouting about it, you don't know whether or not there is a huge scientist / goverment conspiracy (involving thousands of scientists and hundreads of governments). If you do know, why not share the evidence with us?
quote:
Please don't try and pull the wool over our eyes, we know perfectly well the common link is grant funding by a crooked cartel of governments drive by the British who have considerable influence throughout the world.
I think the wool is already well and truly covering your eyes ("see" my analogy of the blind bus driver), but I didn't edo any of the pulling. Your suggestion that the British government is leading this conspiracy is incredible, and I guess you're talking about all British governments back to Thatcher in the 80s.
What about the position of the Bush administration? Bush and his friends in the oil and coal industries have been opposed to this all along, they have funded scientists (Exxon paying $10,000 to any climatologist who will cast doubt on AGW) and media groups to go out and, in the words of one of their leaked memos, "re-position global warming as theory rather than fact". So your conspiracy requires that the British government has actually built a huge alliance in opposition to the Bush administration, and that Bush has just sat back and allowed these lies to be spread. I don't think so, and I don't think you do either.
There's an interesting short video on YouTube, an interview with Frank Luntz, Bush's former pollster, where he talks about advice he gave the Bush administration in 2000 on how to deal with the GW issue. In a memo back then he said: "Voters believe there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe the issues are settled their views will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate..."
Originally posted by legjoints: Your suggestion then is that these 99% of scientists are giving out false information because some government is telling them to mislead the public.
Nope. I'm suggesting that the scientists who have got employment believe it and have been selected on their track record. Surely this is not so strange to you, I mean there are a lot of right wing people in the Tory Party and this is easily explainable by saying it selects people based on their beliefs.
Have you seen the Met Office Internet site recently? Half of it is devoted to telling you what the weather is and the other half on indoctrinating the public in the global warming scam. Look at their recruitment section and you will see the area they are expanding in. Looking at job adverts is a dead give away. If you ever wonder what the council spends your taxes on look at the jobs they advertise.
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.
It is the nature of the opposition, not the fact that it exists at all. Please see my response to Mad World above.
quote:
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.
It's the Swedish Guy. I was hoping for a link to a story about the falsification you claimed. No link, how can I evaluate what you are saying?
If you do a search for the programme called 'Doomsday Called Off'. It's a well presented documentary presenting the skeptical view of the science behind global warming.
In it there's a Swedish scientist in Maldives using a tree as an example how the sea levels aren't rising. I believe that's the person et al is refering to.
But as skeptical point of views go, the programme leaves the viewer thinking either;
1. there's is no global wamring
2. there is global warming but it is not man-made
3. it is man-made global warming but we have nothing to fear because it will all balance out.
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.
Read the science, there's a good section on Real Climate website explaining how CO2 effect works.
There's no doubt methane is also a greenhouse gas, but AGW theory models on man's main greenhouse emission which is mainly CO2.
From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a strai-ght line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they ans-wered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!
Hmm, so the IPCC report is 'tedious,' but he doesn't actually say anything about why the science is wrong (most science is pretty tedious at the detailed level).
A Google search doesn't turn up all that much on this guy. And one guy complaining does not a conspiracy make, we know that there is a very broad scientific consensus Link. I always find it ironic that the only dissenting scientific organisation is the Petroleum Geologists!!
Hmm, so the IPCC report is 'tedious,' but he doesn't actually say anything about why the science is wrong (most science is pretty tedious at the detailed level).
A Google search doesn't turn up all that much on this guy. And one guy complaining does not a conspiracy make, we know that there is a very broad scientific consensus Link. I always find it ironic that the only dissenting scientific organisation is the Petroleum Geologists!!
Well I am a scientist, I admit I don't know everything but this thing simply don't hold water. Why as the Swedish professor suggests do they believe that their views are right and disregard the data on sea-levels so readily? He was their expert last year on sea levels and he says it's not right.
I find this overwhlming of the debate with masses of arguments unhelpful. The whole thing is unscientific, if we put all our effort in one direction we may miss the real situation. I heard it said last week but I have to agree this thing is the kings new clothes. Now don't bother shouting I am walking away, it has shown to be dangerous to question around here.
Quote : They are rather tedious to wade through but they show at once that many of the scientists listed as supposed supporters of the report have serious doubts about it. A friend of mine, John McLean, has done a summary of the names of the reviewers and the number of comments they made.
A Google search doesn't turn up all that much on this guy. And one guy complaining does not a conspiracy make, we know that there is a very broad scientific consensus ]
Well he appears to be "an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
Right, The interview with Morner (http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html) is so heavily biased it really doesn't tell you much. When the interviewer says things like "Which is laughable, this idea that CO2 is driving global warming." there is little point in looking for a challenge to the interviewee. Its a long article and I'm not going to trawl through it.
It is worth pointing out that Morner has misrepresented himself in the past Link. While this says nothing of his claims, it may indicate something of his character. Some of the issues are discussed here. As for his claims that he has sat on a beach in the Maldives without ending up underwater - not very scientific sounding to me.
The first link I can't get working. I think it would be better to discuss the claims rather than rubbish the scientist, the IPCC themselves used him so who are we not to trust. The NZ guy again you try to rubbish, exactly why, is it easier than engage his concerns?
The exec summary in your final link, I trust you will allow me the luxury I allow you to not read it all.
There is broad consensus that human emissions of greenhouse gases— principally carbon dioxide, but also methane and nitrous oxide—contribute to global warming. Because of water’s high capacity for heat retention, the warming effect is not nearly as clear in the atmosphere as it is in the oceans, which have warmed by approximately 0.5ºC (0.9ºF) over the past 65 years.1 Warming seas translate into numerous negative impacts, including coral reef bleaching, fish stock depletion, Gulf Stream disruption, stronger hurricanes, and, of course, a rising sea level.
In order to better understand the challenges presented by sea level rise, in this study we review recent scientific publications and seek both to explain the phenomenon and to predict future effects. In order to gauge the potential benefits of a climate stewardship policy, we illustrate a range of possible impacts below one meter of sea level rise for selected sites both in the United States and worldwide, with three different scenarios for the 21st century in the background. The three scenarios are based on potential greenhouse gas concentrations that would result of three different types of climate policies.
In summary it says, we all know it is happening and we present some hypothetical scenarios for the consequences. That doesn't smell of evidence to me. May I most humbly dare to suggest.
Originally posted by et al: Well I am a scientist, I admit I don't know everything but this thing simply don't hold water. Why as the Swedish professor suggests do they believe that their views are right and disregard the data on sea-levels so readily? He was their expert last year on sea levels and he says it's not right.
Have you researched what responses Morner got? Not what he says, but what the IPCC and others themselves say. To me, it sounds a bit like sour grapes. Morner was apparently removed from his post about 3 years ago, scientists have egos too. TBH, I don't think either of us are qualified to say one way or the other without looking at both sides of the argument. You've presented just the one side.
quote:
I find this overwhelming of the debate with masses of arguments unhelpful. The whole thing is unscientific, if we put all our effort in one direction we may miss the real situation. I heard it said last week but I have to agree this thing is the kings new clothes. Now don't bother shouting I am walking away, it has shown to be dangerous to question around here.
In what way is it unscientific? Precisely? Moving away from an oil-dependant economy and gaining energy independence has enormous economic benefits anyway. Given that oil will start to become an uneconomic energy source in the next 100 years or so, the countries which manage independence first stand to gain a huge amount. Burning hydrocarbons to produce energy, apart from warming the globe, also produce a cocktail of nasty gases such as sulphates (and hence acid rain) and carbon monoxide.
Its not dangerous to question, I'm not going to knock on your door and hit you . What you will get jumped on for is making unsubstantiated claims about an important issue. The thinking is the same as why people really have a go at Holocaust Deniers. Now I'm not equating AGW denial with Holocaust Denial, but the reasons for responding strongly to dodgy claims are the same. If there is an issue for which we have both sides of the argument I am happy to debate the details. This sea level rise issue is beyond me, I don't understand the statistical methods they used, but a quick search found a couple of responses to this guy's complaints.
What really bugs me, though, is the endless repetition of lies about global warming (such as human CO2 emissions are tiny compared to natural, 95% of greenhouse effect is uncontrollable water vapour, it was warmer in the Middle Ages etc etc etc). Those myths are either born out of stupidity on the part of the poster - in which case they should be corrected - or they are malicious, in which case they should be dealt with appropriately.
The exec summary in your final link, I trust you will allow me the luxury I allow you to not read it all.
Thats why I gave you the page number.
It says:
quote:
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, another skeptic, claims: “In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillating close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890–1930.... Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade.”17 Although it is not clear which data Dr. Mörner draws his conclusion from, it can be assumed from a table he presents that he only considers data from Europe, particularly the North Sea. This could explain his failure to note any important rise in sea level, as this region undergoes a lesser rise than the average (although still significantly larger in the 20th century than before), possibly because of glacial rebound.18 As mentioned earlier however, the global trend, free from local variations, clearly shows a rise of 1–2 mm/year in the last century. Moreover, the IPCC review for altimetry data indicates 1.4–3.1 mm/year in the late 1990s,19 and the most recent study (and the only one to date over a complete decade) points out to a rate of 2.8 mm/year.20
Such articles are most useful because, unlike some others, it provides references for you.
quote:
rather than rubbish the scientist
I said :While this says nothing of his claims, it may indicate something of his character.. I then proceeded to link to articles refuting his claims.
Originally posted by et al: Well I am a scientist, I admit I don't know everything but this thing simply don't hold water. Why as the Swedish professor suggests do they believe that their views are right and disregard the data on sea-levels so readily? He was their expert last year on sea levels and he says it's not right.
Have you researched what responses Morner got? Not what he says, but what the IPCC and others themselves say. To me, it sounds a bit like sour grapes. Morner was apparently removed from his post about 3 years ago, scientists have egos too. TBH, I don't think either of us are qualified to say one way or the other without looking at both sides of the argument. You've presented just the one side.
quote:
I find this overwhelming of the debate with masses of arguments unhelpful. The whole thing is unscientific, if we put all our effort in one direction we may miss the real situation. I heard it said last week but I have to agree this thing is the kings new clothes. Now don't bother shouting I am walking away, it has shown to be dangerous to question around here.
In what way is it unscientific? Precisely? Moving away from an oil-dependant economy and gaining energy independence has enormous economic benefits anyway. Given that oil will start to become an uneconomic energy source in the next 100 years or so, the countries which manage independence first stand to gain a huge amount. Burning hydrocarbons to produce energy, apart from warming the globe, also produce a cocktail of nasty gases such as sulphates (and hence acid rain) and carbon monoxide.
Its not dangerous to question, I'm not going to knock on your door and hit you . What you will get jumped on for is making unsubstantiated claims about an important issue. The thinking is the same as why people really have a go at Holocaust Deniers. Now I'm not equating AGW denial with Holocaust Denial, but the reasons for responding strongly to dodgy claims are the same. If there is an issue for which we have both sides of the argument I am happy to debate the details. This sea level rise issue is beyond me, I don't understand the statistical methods they used, but a quick search found a couple of responses to this guy's complaints.
What really bugs me, though, is the endless repetition of lies about global warming (such as human CO2 emissions are tiny compared to natural, 95% of greenhouse effect is uncontrollable water vapour, it was warmer in the Middle Ages etc etc etc). Those myths are either born out of stupidity on the part of the poster - in which case they should be corrected - or they are malicious, in which case they should be dealt with appropriately.
People get banned for 'annoying' people. I'm afraid some get quite annoyed over a perfectly reasonable questioning of effects. Now you clearly know a lot more than I but I do know very much about modelling and it's misuses. I'd like to also take this opportunity to counter your 'petroleum expert' with my 'vested interest in getting grants expert'. It makes perfect sense to me that if a guy gets the boot then he may have a grudge, just as much sense as in the argument that if a guy doesn't agree one rubbishes his ideas. All just a bit nasty for my liking, there is money to be had for research and who do you think gets it?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by welshwarlock: QUOTE]Look I'm not being funny but The swedish profs main research is in the maldives which as far as I'm aware is not in Europe. The repost you quote doesn't give any further counter argument they simply say they don't agree. If I ask him he'll say I don't agree perhaps and we get nowhere fast.
I said :While this says nothing of his claims, it may indicate something of his character.. I then proceeded to link to articles refuting his claims.
No you googled the NZ expert and found little. He did as an expert review and commnet on the report, indeed providing 16% (nearly 2000) of the comments the IPCC received. They, in his view, crassly ignored all of them on dubious grounds. A leading expert working in the field for 20 years and contributing more commnets than any other 'expert'. Sounds like he did a thorough job, don't you think?
. What you will get jumped on for is making unsubstantiated claims about an important issue. The thinking is the same as why people really have a go at Holocaust Deniers. Now I'm not equating AGW denial with Holocaust Denial, but the reasons for responding strongly to dodgy claims are the same. If there is an issue for which we have both sides of the argument I am happy to debate the details. This sea level rise issue is beyond me, I don't understand the statistical methods they used, but a quick search found a couple of responses to this guy's complaints.