Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #26 
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/david-suzuki-bombs-on-qa-knows-nothing-about-the-climate/

OR

http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/the-nature-of-david-suzuki/

With so much "science" on both sides of the issue; I suppose it's up to us to decide - and nature to prove decisions right or wrong for our children/grandchildren/etc...

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #27 

Swallow: It seems to me that if a group of "scientists" want to sell the idea that global warming/climate change is being caused by man made emissions of CO2, then it is incumbant upon them to provide scientific proof before we start implementing costly national programs.

Have they proved that increases in CO2 CAUSES climate change? .... no they have not .... the empirical evidence shows CO2 increases about 600 years AFTER a global warming has occurred. Hence it cannot be the cause of climate change. Have they made a prediction of future events which proves true [the classic characteristic of a real science] ..... no they have not ..... they have been predicting global warming catastophes for 25 years .... and yet the last 19 years have shown NO change in global temperature and none of their catastrophes have occurred. Have they "adjusted data" to suit their agenda ..... check out Climategate.

So why don't we follow normal rules ..... if they think man-made global warming is an imminent crisis ...PROVE THEIR CASE instead of giving us this tripe about 97% of all climate scientists agree with the global warming theory when that statistic is blatantly false.  

So why don't we follow normal rules .... if they think man-made global warming is an imminent crisis ...PROVE THEIR CASE instead of giving us a continuous diet of ad hominem attacks on anyone who is sceptical.



0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #28 

Oh No !!!!!! The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which has been promoting the man-made CO2 mantra for the past 20 years and its climate "scientists" have been steadfastly insisting that man is almost the sole factor in climate change and the sun no longer plays a role ... just made this public admission. They foresee a weakening of the sun's activity over the coming years which is going to mean that the climate will get colder.

Oh No !!!!! Now Notley and Trudeau as going to have to impose a "sun spot tax" so that they can create a huge bureaucracy which will pass some regulations which absolutely prohibits the sun from reducing its sun sport activity. Since they are busy killing the coal industry and blocking pipe line development and hindering the oil and gas industy, I assume they are confident that their windmills and solar panels will more than compensate for the reduction in heat from the sun.

Thank goodness we have these two "bright lights" leading the province and the nation in this hour of peril.[crazy]

0
Ann

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #29 
theskeptic - can you provide a link to the Potsdam "admission" please.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #30 
ANN;  http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/where_did_that_warming_go/
0
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #31 
"According to the PIK scientists, the reduced solar activity will, however, not be able to stop the global warming"
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #32 
Dana:  Yes .... that's the "global warming" that has not been occurring for the past 18 years and so they changed their brand to "climate change."  However, for them it's  a good line to attempt to cover for the fact that they are now admitting that the sun is the primary driver of climate. Everyone is entitled to attempt to save face.
0
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #33 

Skeptic,

I am not a global warming proponent or denier.  To be frank, I dont fully understand the science and I have trouble understanding how claims can be made about warming patterns based on 100 years of data on a planet with a 5 billion year history...

I am not reading the postdam article the same as you as no where anywhere does it say that global warming is driven by the sun.  This is just showing that decreased solar output might lead to decreased european temps then it even goes on to day that it will not reverse the global warming trend.  Correlation and Causation are not the same thing.  And, I will also point out that the link you posted is not a release by the potsdam institute, but it is a blog post without any reference so source material.  

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #34 

Dana ... Yes if you have not been following the global warming debate over the past 20 years the announcement by PIK read in isolation may seem to be unremarkable.

The essence of the PIK report was that "Europe may be facing a mini ice age due to a possible protracted solar minimum."

For years people like astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn, have been studying sun spot activity and making repeated accurate long range weather predictions unlike the climate establishment. He has repeatedly argued that (a) CO2 has little to no effect on climate change, and (b) the sun is the main driver of climate change. He has repeatedly said the climate is cooling not warming.
based on his data of sun spot activity.  For years ,the response from the PIK/Global Warming side of the debate is to dismiss him as an irrelevant crank denier for claiming the sun is the main driver of climate change .... for them it was all about man made CO2.

Consequently, for them to publicly announce that reduced sun spot activity could lead to a climate cooling is remarkable because "[f]or an institute that over the past 20 years has steadfastly insisted that man has been almost the sole factor in climate change over the past century and that the sun no longer plays a role, this is quite remarkable."

1
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #35 
Skepic, Again that is not at all what I am saying.  I am saying the comment was posted on a blog without source material.  I would love to see an actual announcement from PIK.

And I never said I have not been following the debate.  I am saying I have a hard time circling the square on some of the science.  I am a medical scientist / embryologist.  The analogy I like to use is that when I look at a four-cell embryo, I dont make predictions about personality traits of the adult it will create.  We dont look at a picture of an embryo and draw those conclusions which is why I have a hard time understanding how climate scientists can have these models that take 100 years of data and extrapolate over 5.4 billion years.  

But, yes, I have been following - just not for 20 years (im only 32) 
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #36 
Dana:  You said ... "I am saying the comment was posted on a blog without source material.  I would love to see an actual announcement from PIK." which raises the questions:

As a "scientist" ...........
(a) do you have any reports from PIK denying this publication's observations  about their report ????
(b) do you have any evidence that PIK is suing the publisher for defamation ????
(c) have you attempted to obtain the PIK report yourself ????

Additionally you said "....I have a hard time understanding how climate scientists can have these models that take 100 years of data and extrapolate over 5.4 billion years."  In their defence, these climatologists have data which extends back further than 100 years.  They use various proxies (such as ice cores) in which they can identify the % of CO2 in the atmosphere for a given year since the atmosphere has been captured in the ice.  

The real complaint from the skeptic's point of view is how intellectually dishonest the global warming crowd have been in their employment of this data.  For example:
Mann's hockey stick graph:
(a) used tree rings as a proxy assuming simply that thicker annual tree rings established more co2 for that year  ... which is a rather sketchy scientific assumption since there are many other variables related to annual tree growth rates;
(b) it is alleged his sampling was "selective" so that he could argue that the Middle Ages global warming period did not occur.
Additionally:
(c)  other warmists have moved weather stations around the world from cooler rural areas to urban heat islands to "adjust" the data to fit their theory.
Further:
(d) none of their predictions of climate temperature based on their computer models have proven true when the empirical data is examined.
Finally:  although everyone agrees that satellite data is the best technique for determining global temperatures ... the global warming crowd choose to ignore or marginalize that data because it shows no global warming over the past 19 years in direct contrast to the global warming crowd public statements.

So, all in all, their science is rather tenuous which is why they keep attempting to justify their theory with non scientific arguments like:
(a)  there is a 97% consensus ..... who ever decided that science proceeds by way of "consensus"?
(b) the science is settled  .... what real scientist says the science is "settled"?
(c) the people who do not accept our AGW theory are just "deniers" .. what real scientist uses ad hominem attacks as a tool to defend his scientific theory??? 



2
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #37 
Skeptic,

Perhaps I am reading too much into your "scientist" comment regarding myself, but I dont understand the use of the quotes.  I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish, if anything, in an attempt to discretid my credentials, but my diploma in medical laboratory technology, honors bachelors degree in medical laboratory science, and masters degree in clinical embryology negate the need for you to use quotation marks when referring to me as a scientist.  Further, I am the Director of Laboratory services for in vitro fertilization, embryology and assisted reproductive technology at the regional fertility and women's endocrine clinic.  

I would never refer to you as a "lawyer."  It is a tad bit disrespectful.  

In response to your specific comments:

(a) - No.  
(b) - Of course not.  Im not a lawyer, but I dont necessarily see the blog post as defination.  Further I would argue it is highly unlikely that PIK has seen this obscure blog.  
(c) Yes I have and I was unable too.  Hence why I ask you who made the claims.  You are the one you stated "Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research... Just made this public admission".  When asked for the source, you posted a blog that did not have any affiliation with them nor did it reference the source material.  You made the claim, not me.  Burden of proof is on you.  
0
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #38 
Also:
This comment:

"(c) the people who do not accept our AGW theory are just "deniers" .. what real scientist uses ad hominem attacks as a tool to defend his scientific theory??? "

Is spot on.  I believe that both sides of the debate would be better served (as would the everyone) if the issue of climate change was de-politicized and there was an attempt and more responsible unbiased research and dialogue.  In general, the vast majority in both camps are able to has respectful conversations, but there are extremists in both groups that are militant in their beliefs which does nothing to further responsible dialogue. 
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #39 

I am not a lawyer ... but thank you for the compliment.

Since you are the only one I know who is questioning the article that I referred to, and since the many people with whom I correspond that are fully conversant with the global warming debate agree with the article's comments about the PIK press release, it seems incumbant upon you to go to the PIK website and read the article. Scientists usually like to have some data or evidence to support their assertions.

Secondly, since the article to which I referred to merely made note of the fact that PIK is now acknowledging that the sun is a major driver of climate and that that is a dramatic change in position for PIK ..... and the PIK article which is located on their website does say that .... I'm having difficulty understanding the significance of your point.

As to your comment ".....I believe that both sides of the debate would be better served (as would the everyone) if the issue of climate change was de-politicized and there was an attempt and more responsible unbiased research and dialogue. In general, the vast majority in both camps are able to has respectful conversations, but there are extremists in both groups that are militant in their beliefs which does nothing to further responsible dialogue " here are some things for you to consider if a "respectful conversation" is to occur:

1. Are scientific theories determined to be true or false as a matter of public consensus?
2. Which side of the debate politicized this issue?
3. How does one characterize their global warming theory as "scientific" when literally none of their climate predictions have proven to be accurate?
4. How do you have a "respectful conversation" with a group who are now (in the USA) using the Courts as a tool to try and shut down debate over global warming?
5. Why are we spending millions upon millions of tax dollars on a theory which is more similar to a religious/political belief than it is to being a scientific theory based on facts and deduced through the application of rational logic?

I might add that it seems only when the global warming side started to see that they were losing the debate did we hear any suggestions about depoliticizing the discussion.

1
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #40 
"I am not a lawyer ... but thank you for the compliment. "

Are we still going to pretend that we don't actually know who you are? [smile]


1
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #41 

Dana: I don't particularly care if you are obsessed with speculating about peoples identities. It is often a major focus of the discussion at rug making parties and the gossip sessions at Timmy's and therefore it is not surprising it seems to be one of your preoccupations.

My particular interest is in philosophy and hence the validity of ideas irrespective of the author. Unfortunately, the interest in the cogency of ideas, the logical or mathematical symmetry of the justification for those ideas .... does not seem to be valued by very many people in society.

Therefore I'm neither shocked nor surprised by those who attempt to buttress their argument by promoting their academic qualifications or their wealth. I notice that frequently when a person's substantive arguments begin to look vacuous, they turn to personal matters to distract from the weakness of their argument.

In the gossipy superficial culture of facebook and twitter I suppose all of the foregoing is to be expected.

2
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #42 
Skeptic, I could not be further from being obsessed with peoples identities here.  Do I think the general conversation would be better if people owned their comments?  Yes.  Do I think that people hide behind anonymity to hid some level of bias? Yes. 

The only reason I brought up my credentials was because you chose, as usual, to be belligerent even when I was trying to engage in a respectful conversation.  You know what you meant by "scientist."  I guess as you say "Therefore I'm neither shocked nor surprised by those who attempt to buttress their argument by promoting their academic qualifications or their wealth" I will counter with I am not surprised when people attempt to discredit or diminish someones credentials to fullfill a need of feeling morally and intellectually superior to everyone they engage with. 


And, from my experience, you do not want to discuss philosophy.  You don't engage in or attempt to engage in policy discussions.  You have your opinion and ideology.  If someone agrees with you, you feel accomplished.  If someone counters and tries to even have a remotely respectful conversation you attack.  

Have a good day

2
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #43 
Yes Dana .... looking at your posts since you joined this thread I can see you've have truly made an outstanding contribution to the discussion of the politics and/or science of climate change.  It has truly been enlightening.
1
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #44 
And your "substantial" contribution was a link to a blog post without any source or credible sources to back up the information.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danapop
And your "substantial" contribution was a link to a blog post without any source or credible sources to back up the information.


from which all you had to do was google the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and thereafter do a simple search via their search box for the article in question if you were genuinely interested in reading that paper.
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #46 
The Climate Change proponents have not contributed REAL facts as to their cause. The only fact is that some people are making a LOT of money!
0
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #47 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic


from which all you had to do was google the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and thereafter do a simple search via their search box for the article in question if you were genuinely interested in reading that paper.


Let me summarize this for you:

1. You posted a comment without a source.  
2. Ann asked you to post a source for the admission.  
3. You didn't. You posted an referenced blog post. 
4. I asked you for the blog sources.
5. You told me to google.
6. I did and found nothing.
7. You insult my credentials for no reason.
8. You go on the attack because your comments cannot be substantiated.  

Have a great day.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #48 
Dana:  You said "6. I did and found nothing."


I had no problems finding it and the paper said exactly what the author I referred to said. "
0
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #49 
So, why did you not just post that then?
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #50 
Because from the outset I have never considered your request to be genuine and reviewing your posts on this thread that seems to be a perfectly valid perspective.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.