This is a well articulated explanation of the problems we have to face with so-called climate skeptics:



Quote:


William Freudenburg, Professor of Environmental and Society University of California Santa Barbara California USA

(from The Science Show (ABC)

Soren wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 10:23am:


That Urban Heat Island effect has been discovered by climate dissenters is an urban legend. It has always been corrected for, and subsequent studies show that even taking the worst examples made absolutely no difference to the final results. Let me dig that out if you don't believe me.  

I've dealt with the so-called CRU hack previously. "Hiding the decline" referred to some tree-ring data that wasn't even primary climate data, and even the original researchers advised that the data was suspect - so don't use it.  

The climate models don't come into this argument.

muso wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 10:53am:



por qué, Señor Fawlty?

Wasting your time Soren...  they fail to see the mote in their own eyes.

I think we need a mote in eye, and a foot in mouth specialist to examine these posts.

Some of the criticisms against the small group of scientists at east anglia is extremely valid Soren, and changes have been implemented to address those faults, but the simple, unavoidable fact remains, that their findings remain valid.
Their findings have been checked, and found to be accurate, it was their process of sharing information which was criticised, and rightly so.

It was why we had the village idiot discussion the other day, they felt so assailed by the sea of village idiots which make up the denialist world, that they reacted by becoming secretive and mistrusting, which although eminently understandable, when you are subjected to ceaseless professional, and personal harassment of the worst kind, it still does not make it right, and they have already changed all their protocols to now freely share all information.

Your first point, is that you do not want politicians making policy based on slapdash research.

That is a perfectly reasonable position to take, all would agree with that, however, you have no grounds for calling the research slapdash, it is about as far from slapdash as you could ever get.
It is based on a growing understanding, with the conclusion becoming more strongly supported by scientific analysis every year for decades now.
The core science remains unchallenged by any scientific analysis, it is only challenged by those carrying belief based opinions, and that is a no-contest.

The denialists after all these years have found one indian mucked up his figures on a himalyan glacier, and put in 2035, instead of 2350, by mistake.
So out of all the thousands of studies done by tens of thousands of scientists around the world, that all agree, and support the consensus of scientific assessment about AGW, how many have denialists proven to be wrong?
Have they ever proven anything to do with any of the fundamental core scientific analyses and conclusions from which the consensus arose, to be wrong?

It is science, if another scientist thinks something is wrong, he designs a study, collects data, and takes observations, then presents his evidence.
Your Denialist "scientists" create blog sites and merely yell, "It's wrong", and that as we have already been over so often, is not science.

You sometimes see individual studies that throw up anomalies that appear to contradict the consensus view, but when these are tested by other scientists, they are found to fail the scrutiny of their peers due to poor design or implementation leading to erroneous conclusions.

Now if AGW was the scam you say it is, then scientists could do the same to the consensus scientists work, review it, and point out it's scientific flaws, and we both know they have tried so hard to do that, but they have failed, miserably.
The consensus opinion is holding up to all scientific scrutiny, and as long as it continues to do so, it will deservedly remain the consensus view.

It it ever loses that, then you can start telling me how you knew it all along, in the meantime, try and become a skeptic rather than a denier, it is much easier to respect skeptics.

You're missing the point. It was an intellectual property issue anyway, The Met office's Hadley Centre is totally separate from the CRU, and the data belonged to them.

Not only that, but like most Meteorology Centres, they charged for that kind of data. It would have been unethical to release the data.

Not only their professional work dissected muso, but also these ppor guys have denialist fanatics traumatising them with death threats and violence, because the deniers just "know" they are right, so it follows as logical to them, that these scientists must therefore be crooks, and deserving of the vile treatment they have received.
That is denialist thinking.

muso wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 5:36pm:



This is, once again, bollocks on stilts. Would you take medicine that was developed without testing, just because the R&D was based on 'intellectual propert issues'? What utter nonsense.

If they don't want to subject their data to attempts to falsify their findings (a.k.a. the scientific method), well, then they can bugger off and I am glad they are taking beta blockers to cope with the contempt and ridicule heaped on them. Anyone who still wants to base public policy just on their say-so is a charlatan.

Soren wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 11:27pm:


Would you give away medicine that belonged to somebody else for free?

(or maybe charge them for it   )


Anyway, you don't need to take my word for it -

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/phil_jones_vindicated.php


Quote:



Paella - There is a link to the UK House of Commons Report on that last link. It makes for interesting reading.
 

They really didn't have any choice on the matter where Intellectual Property concerns were at stake.

muso wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 4:01pm:



Brilliant. The fundamental scientific dissemination cannot be carried out - but hey, let's base world-wide public policy on their finding anyway!! But this is not a scam coz it's legal, innit.

muso wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 4:01pm:

Indeed it does. Thanks Muso. Makes you wonder how it ever got so far.

Good work Soren, you have just shown you cannot understand literature as well as science.
AGW a Catch 22????

If 'you' don't believe it proves it is real, is about as near as we could get to a Catch 22 analogy that would even approximate it's original meaning.

So I suppose it may have some validity for denialists.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 19^th, 2010 at 9:10pm:



Unfalsifiable.

Strange, I always thought Catch 22 referred to a logical paradox whereby a unit can only become member of a set if it can be demonstrated that the same unit is ineligible to become a member of that set.

The other kinda catch in AGW is this: I am not aware of any accurate predictions so far by AGW proponents. So more 'mission have to be flown' in the form of more guesses are to be made about future events or trends, only to turn out as inaccurate as the ones before.

My prediction is this: these AGW predictions are inaccurate because they rely too heavily on the assumption that CO2 is the determinant factor in climate.
Why?
In accordance with scientific tradition, there would be a gentlemen's competition among cientists to disprove the CO2 induced AGW hypothesis. The greatest service one science can do for another is to work at falsifying his theory. But I am not aware of worldwide, well-regarded (and well-funded) efforts to falsify CO2 induced AGW. Instead, it is treated as heresy.

Whatever scientific consensus exists, it does not seem to be the result of years of pro and con research. It is the result of years of pro research reinforced by a lot of 'shuddapayourface' directed at those who would attempt to falsify it.

This is not science, it is groupthink. It also illustrates that there is no 'scientific conspiracy', only unwillingness by scientists to conduct research to falsify the theory: they would be treated as heretics rather than as gentlemen doing a great service for science.

This may also be a clue as to why it is mostly independent scientists outside climate departments who voice contrary views or if it's insiders, they tend to be the older, most senior profs, like Lindzen, who no longer need to rely on reserch grants and funding proposals for their jobs. If you are an active, mid-career researcher, what would you do? Face down the hysterics or get with the program?

muso wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 8:08am:



Funny. Why is there a worldwide campaign to 'limit' (the hubris! the hubris!) global warming to 2 degrees by simply reducing CO2 emissions. What the hell was An Inconvenient Truth about? What was Copenhagen about?

Not about "catastrophic volcanic explosions over the next 30 years,' or "sudden fluctuation in solar output" or "a new source of energy ". It has always been only about CO2 emissions. We are not urged to transform our lives in case there are volcanic eruptions and/or solar flairups.

P1ssed myself laughing watching Q&A last night ... and so did many in the audience, at Nick Minchin's numerous inane remarks. I particularly loved the way he brought up the East Angle issue. Hold on to it Nick, hold on to it for dear life. Surely there must be something in it for you!

Well probably not, but you'll sure as hell create plenty of amusement for us in the meantime.

Soren wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 2:02pm:




Soren - you are at least capable of listening to logical arguments..... then forgetting about them after a month or two only to dredge up the same old "Wot about this then? eh? - got you there, haven't I" from whatever source you choose.  

Soren wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 2:52pm:


Oh I see your spin now. HRH Prince Chuckie is somewhat irrelevant - I mean in terms of the climate.

Now if it was about bringing democracy into architectural planning............ no, sorry he's still irrelevant.

When I met him back in 1979, I was struck by his totally unremarkable character. He didn't know the first thing about science then and he's no better now.  With every passing year, he's turning into his father.

I liked Robert Sawyer's prediction in "Flashforward". Elizabeth II dies in 2017, the throne bypasses a now totally barmy Prince Charles, and is renounced by Prince William, forcing parliament to dissolve the monarchy.

Ziggy wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 5:43pm:


It doesn't do anything for the more imminent problem - that of ocean acidification.

Ziggy wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 7:44pm:


I have an idea that could conceivable be tested in land-locked seas. You basically have to genetically modify certain types of foraminifera such that they accumulate carbonate at a greater rate and die earlier, thus increasing the rate at which calcite is deposited  on the seabed.

The forams and corals that were prevalent during the Eocene would be better suited to seawater of lower pH. Unfortunately these are now extinct.  We could potentially mimic and accelerate adaptive evolution using this technology.

However there are risks. They are much greater than the risks of reducing carbon emissions.