Australian Politics Forum - Re: Climate Science

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #345 - Mar 4^th, 2011 at 6:39pm

muso wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 10:21am:

ThripD wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 9:16pm:

I've read nearly this whole damn thread, 23 pages and counting! I'd like to congratulate the moderator et. al. on the cool and calm manner with which you debunk all the ignorant rantings coming at you.

I've been reading plenty of other online discussions on climate change, very few manage the patience to deal with each and every point with logic AND citations, without stooping to personal attacks or just giving up or ignoring.

Every person deserves a voice, noone knows everything. Keeping those two things in mind makes for a fair and productive forum. I'd like to join in from time to time (more for questions rather than attacks).

Keep up the great work!

Thanks for your encouragement.

It's very easy to jump on an article as being total nonsense, and it makes me angry when people are obviously trying to pull a fast one by exploiting the fact that most people don't have a very good grasp of basic science. So the natural reaction from a person familiar with the field is to over-react and use four letter words, jump up and down a lot etc

However that's exactly what these pundits want you to do, so that they can then claim that you're offended at the "sacrilege" or something like that when in fact that the outrage is from people lying through their teeth and laughing at your attempts to debunk their lies while attempting to retain some modicum of composure.

Spoken like Abu - overreaction is justifiable 'natural reaction'.

People do not need a thorough grounding in science to perceive that making definite and far-reaching pronouncments about a very complex system with lots of variables whose interaction is only dimply understood or not at all is asking for a challenge.

But people grounded in science want their authority to prevail, even if their arguments can't.

Here's a very simple question: was there any scienmtific prediction made 50-60 years ago that actually became true? ANy post-war scientific predictions about the 21st century that actually came to pass?

(for illustration purposes only)

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #346 - Mar 4^th, 2011 at 7:26pm

Post War predictions?

Well I can do better than that. The Atomic bomb was predicted in 1914 by Dr. Patrick B. Sharp, extrapolating from the work of Frederick Soddy, a British chemist who worked on radioactivity.

Radar was predicted in 1911 by Hugo Gernsback.

Video phones were predicted to be popular in 1962.

Of course you always come up with these bizarre Thunderbirds type examples claiming that these were 'scientific' predictions that proved wrong. (the principal strawman)

If you think that scientists are the same thing as Hollywood directors and vice versa, then perhaps, my dear philosopher, you are faced with an existential dilemma or perhaps a lack of correspondence between reality and the version of reality that you carry around in your brain.

Now the above examples are extremely complex scientific predictions. In the case of average global temperatures, the prediction is much less complex. Remember the river analogy? You can predict how long it will take your boat to float down the river to a useful degree of accuracy, but you can't predict the exact spacial position at any given time due to the tortuous swirls in the river.

We're not attempting to predict the exact time of a shower on January 2 2055 at Bankstown. We are predicting what will happen to global temperatures given the fact that the energy input will increase as a result of the greenhouse effect.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #347 - Mar 4^th, 2011 at 9:43pm muso wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 7:26pm: lack of correspondence between reality and the version of reality that you carry around in your brain. You have nailed the human predicament.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #348 - Mar 6^th, 2011 at 6:36pm Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 9:43pm: muso wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 7:26pm: lack of correspondence between reality and the version of reality that you carry around in your brain. You have nailed the human predicament. ..and that's where science comes in - you can check that version to see if it gels.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz... Reply #349 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 9:41am Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

ThripD

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6

Re: Climate Science
Reply #350 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 6:16pm

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 6:39pm:

Spoken like Abu - overreaction is justifiable 'natural reaction'.

People do not need a thorough grounding in science to perceive that making definite and far-reaching pronouncments about a very complex system with lots of variables whose interaction is only dimply understood or not at all is asking for a challenge.

But people grounded in science want their authority to prevail, even if their arguments can't.

When I want advice about my car I go to my mechanic. When I have a health problem I go to my GP. Neither are omnipotent beings bathed in absolute truth, perhaps they have a vested interest in my spending money at their establishment? Regardless, they know a hell of a lot more than I about my car and my health because they have been working in those fields all their adult life.

People grounded in science will tell you that a theory is a THEORY, it can never be 100% certain, but it is a best possible fit given all the up to date physical evidence. Absolute undisputed truth is rarely a pre-requisite for action, this has allowed us to progress beyond THE WHEEL to bigger and better things.

Scientists thrive on debate, a great scientist will invite people to shoot them down. Sometimes people actually succeed in doing so and great insights are obtained from professionals external to the field of study. I have seen many many attempts to shoot down the climate change debate but no cigar so far.

Why should we trust what climatologists say about our climate? Erm, well.... OK suppose they're wrong, the consequences of acting when we didn't need to are nothing when compared to the consequences of not acting when we should have.

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #351 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 6:34pm

ThripD wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 6:16pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 6:39pm:

Spoken like Abu - overreaction is justifiable 'natural reaction'.

People do not need a thorough grounding in science to perceive that making definite and far-reaching pronouncments about a very complex system with lots of variables whose interaction is only dimply understood or not at all is asking for a challenge.

But people grounded in science want their authority to prevail, even if their arguments can't.

When I want advice about my car I go to my mechanic. When I have a health problem I go to my GP. Neither are omnipotent beings bathed in absolute truth, perhaps they have a vested interest in my spending money at their establishment? Regardless, they know a hell of a lot more than I about my car and my health because they have been working in those fields all their adult life.

People grounded in science will tell you that a theory is a THEORY, it can never be 100% certain, but it is a best possible fit given all the up to date physical evidence. Absolute undisputed truth is rarely a pre-requisite for action, this has allowed us to progress beyond THE WHEEL to bigger and better things.

Scientists thrive on debate, a great scientist will invite people to shoot them down. Sometimes people actually succeed in doing so and great insights are obtained from professionals external to the field of study. I have seen many many attempts to shoot down the climate change debate but no cigar so far.

Why should we trust what climatologists say about our climate? Erm, well.... OK suppose they're wrong, the consequences of acting when we didn't need to are nothing when compared to the consequences of not acting when we should have.

You make some very good points.

ANd there is debate amongst Climate scientists but they dont disagree about the effects of AGW. They discuss the possible scenarios and mitigation strategies.

The mass media however portray some UNIVESAL debate where the scientific community is split downt he middle - this is laughable.

A theory's efficacy and ligitimacy is purely based on its ability to explain observations and fit experimental data.

I dont see any theory out there which says that rising atmospheric CO2 level caused by humans will NOT effect the earths average temperature, climate conditions, sea levels etc.

And the reason for this absence is that such a theory is not supported by the fundamentals of science and the data.

SO one must ask themselves What is the scientific basis for thinking that humans can continue increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels without any detrimental effects ont he ecosystem, climate and on human civilisation?

I dont know of any scientific basis to that contention - perhaps there is a corporate or political one

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #352 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 7:53pm

ThripD wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 6:16pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 6:39pm:

Spoken like Abu - overreaction is justifiable 'natural reaction'.

People do not need a thorough grounding in science to perceive that making definite and far-reaching pronouncments about a very complex system with lots of variables whose interaction is only dimply understood or not at all is asking for a challenge.

But people grounded in science want their authority to prevail, even if their arguments can't.

When I want advice about my car I go to my mechanic. When I have a health problem I go to my GP. Neither are omnipotent beings bathed in absolute truth, perhaps they have a vested interest in my spending money at their establishment? Regardless, they know a hell of a lot more than I about my car and my health because they have been working in those fields all their adult life.

People grounded in science will tell you that a theory is a THEORY, it can never be 100% certain, but it is a best possible fit given all the up to date physical evidence. Absolute undisputed truth is rarely a pre-requisite for action, this has allowed us to progress beyond THE WHEEL to bigger and better things.

Scientists thrive on debate, a great scientist will invite people to shoot them down. Sometimes people actually succeed in doing so and great insights are obtained from professionals external to the field of study. I have seen many many attempts to shoot down the climate change debate but no cigar so far.

Why should we trust what climatologists say about our climate? Erm, well.... OK suppose they're wrong, the consequences of acting when we didn't need to are nothing when compared to the consequences of not acting when we should have.

I would be grateful if you could show us what exactly the scientific consensus is. Please do not refer to politicians, people/bodies financed by politicians, blogs, popular magazines or such like.

All scientists you will ever find agree on only the motherhood statement about CO2: human generated CO2 contributes to global climate change because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Beyond that, there is no scientific consensus: how much change does it cauase, how bad, how to counter it etc, etc. No scientific consensus.
SO the only consensus is about year 9 science. That's not worth throwing billions of dollars at.

Back to top

IP Logged

ThripD

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6

Re: Climate Science
Reply #353 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 7:57pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 6:34pm:

ThripD wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 6:16pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 6:39pm:

Spoken like Abu - overreaction is justifiable 'natural reaction'.

People do not need a thorough grounding in science to perceive that making definite and far-reaching pronouncments about a very complex system with lots of variables whose interaction is only dimply understood or not at all is asking for a challenge.

But people grounded in science want their authority to prevail, even if their arguments can't.

When I want advice about my car I go to my mechanic. When I have a health problem I go to my GP. Neither are omnipotent beings bathed in absolute truth, perhaps they have a vested interest in my spending money at their establishment? Regardless, they know a hell of a lot more than I about my car and my health because they have been working in those fields all their adult life.

People grounded in science will tell you that a theory is a THEORY, it can never be 100% certain, but it is a best possible fit given all the up to date physical evidence. Absolute undisputed truth is rarely a pre-requisite for action, this has allowed us to progress beyond THE WHEEL to bigger and better things.

Scientists thrive on debate, a great scientist will invite people to shoot them down. Sometimes people actually succeed in doing so and great insights are obtained from professionals external to the field of study. I have seen many many attempts to shoot down the climate change debate but no cigar so far.

Why should we trust what climatologists say about our climate? Erm, well.... OK suppose they're wrong, the consequences of acting when we didn't need to are nothing when compared to the consequences of not acting when we should have.

You make some very good points.

ANd there is debate amongst Climate scientists but they dont disagree about the effects of AGW. They discuss the possible scenarios and mitigation strategies.

The mass media however portray some UNIVESAL debate where the scientific community is split downt he middle - this is laughable.

A theory's efficacy and ligitimacy is purely based on its ability to explain observations and fit experimental data.

I dont see any theory out there which says that rising atmospheric CO2 level caused by humans will NOT effect the earths average temperature, climate conditions, sea levels etc.

And the reason for this absence is that such a theory is not supported by the fundamentals of science and the data.

SO one must ask themselves What is the scientific basis for thinking that humans can continue increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels without any detrimental effects ont he ecosystem, climate and on human civilisation?

I dont know of any scientific basis to that contention - perhaps there is a corporate or political one

Vocal opponents of AGW are 200% sure that it's all a load of BS, they lack the certain level of humility required for their views to be considered scientific.

It's gone beyond scientific and corporate and political realms and has pervaded everyday life. Never before have so many uninformed opinions weighed in on such a complex phenomenon. You will rarely find someone who has no opinion on this and would prefer to side with whatever the experts think.

I would hate to think what might happen should we go to a referrendum on this Huh

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #354 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 8:08pm

Soren wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 7:53pm:

All scientists you will ever find agree on only the motherhood statement about CO2: human generated CO2 contributes to global climate change because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Beyond that, there is no scientific consensus: how much change does it cauase, how bad, how to counter it etc, etc. No scientific consensus.
SO the only consensus is about year 9 science. That's not worth throwing billions of dollars at.

Also see :
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-e...

Multiple choice question
What is the Spectral emissivity of carbon dioxide at 15 microns?

A. Very accurately determined
B. There is no consensus on this.
C. Very low.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 14^th, 2011 at 8:17pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

ThripD

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6

Re: Climate Science
Reply #355 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 8:36pm

OK you jump from a plane with a parachute strapped to your back. You radio your friend in the plane and ask what will happen if you don't pull the chord, he says you will hit the ground and be flat like a pancake. You don't believe him so you ask him to radio all his skydiving mates and ask them. A minute later, you're 2km from the ground, he radios back and informs you that it has been very difficult to come to a consensus on what will happen, some say you'll bounce, some say you'll form a man-shaped crater, some say you'll concertina like a telescopic fishing rod. Can you see where this is headed....

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #356 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 8:54pm

ThripD wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 8:36pm:

OK you jump from a plane with a parachute strapped to your back. You radio your friend in the plane and ask what will happen if you don't pull the chord, he says you will hit the ground and be flat like a pancake. You don't believe him so you ask him to radio all his skydiving mates and ask them. A minute later, you're 2km from the ground, he radios back and informs you that it has been very difficult to come to a consensus on what will happen, some say you'll bounce, some say you'll form a man-shaped crater, some say you'll concertina like a telescopic fishing rod. Can you see where this is headed....

Hitting the ground at terminal velocity with terminal effects?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

ThripD

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6

Re: Climate Science
Reply #357 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 9:14pm

muso wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 8:54pm:

ThripD wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 8:36pm:

OK you jump from a plane with a parachute strapped to your back. You radio your friend in the plane and ask what will happen if you don't pull the chord, he says you will hit the ground and be flat like a pancake. You don't believe him so you ask him to radio all his skydiving mates and ask them. A minute later, you're 2km from the ground, he radios back and informs you that it has been very difficult to come to a consensus on what will happen, some say you'll bounce, some say you'll form a man-shaped crater, some say you'll concertina like a telescopic fishing rod. Can you see where this is headed....

Hitting the ground at terminal velocity with terminal effects?

Erm, yes, sorry. Just trying to point out that a complete and undisputed consensus of every single detail may take decades and, yes billions to achieve, though is it really necessary? Are the skeptics justified in requiring this before any action is considered? I think not but to put myself in their shoes I might think otherwise.

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #358 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 9:20pm

Soren wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 7:53pm:

ThripD wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 6:16pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 6:39pm:

Spoken like Abu - overreaction is justifiable 'natural reaction'.

People do not need a thorough grounding in science to perceive that making definite and far-reaching pronouncments about a very complex system with lots of variables whose interaction is only dimply understood or not at all is asking for a challenge.

But people grounded in science want their authority to prevail, even if their arguments can't.

When I want advice about my car I go to my mechanic. When I have a health problem I go to my GP. Neither are omnipotent beings bathed in absolute truth, perhaps they have a vested interest in my spending money at their establishment? Regardless, they know a hell of a lot more than I about my car and my health because they have been working in those fields all their adult life.

People grounded in science will tell you that a theory is a THEORY, it can never be 100% certain, but it is a best possible fit given all the up to date physical evidence. Absolute undisputed truth is rarely a pre-requisite for action, this has allowed us to progress beyond THE WHEEL to bigger and better things.

Scientists thrive on debate, a great scientist will invite people to shoot them down. Sometimes people actually succeed in doing so and great insights are obtained from professionals external to the field of study. I have seen many many attempts to shoot down the climate change debate but no cigar so far.

Why should we trust what climatologists say about our climate? Erm, well.... OK suppose they're wrong, the consequences of acting when we didn't need to are nothing when compared to the consequences of not acting when we should have.

I would be grateful if you could show us what exactly the scientific consensus is. Please do not refer to politicians, people/bodies financed by politicians, blogs, popular magazines or such like.

All scientists you will ever find agree on only the motherhood statement about CO2: human generated CO2 contributes to global climate change because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Beyond that, there is no scientific consensus: how much change does it cauase, how bad, how to counter it etc, etc. No scientific consensus.
SO the only consensus is about year 9 science. That's not worth throwing billions of dollars at.

So the survival of the human species should be determined by economists and the desciples of the Stock Market?

The problem with you Soren is that your allow your right wing political immorality to contaminate your opinion on a simple scientific fact called AGW.

The irony is however, that your opinion on AGW is irrelevant anyway. Its like the flat earthers - life has moved on int he world even though the flat earth society still exists

It would be like asking me to express an opinion on the Nueroloigcal causes of Parkinson's disease - I am sure that you would value my opinion in the same light as the leading expert in the field.

You dont even understand the basics of how science functions and propagates. You rely on snake oil salesmen techniques to make yourself appear enlightened on a topic you clearly dont understand or are willing to even accept at any point in the future.

So how are you able to even debate the topic with even a shred of credibility is totally beyond me.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #359 - Mar 15^th, 2011 at 10:08am

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 9:20pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 7:53pm:

I would be grateful if you could show us what exactly the scientific consensus is.

So the survival of the human species should be determined by economists and the desciples of the Stock Market?

The problem with you Soren is that your allow your right wing political immorality to contaminate your opinion on a simple scientific fact called AGW.

The irony is however, that your opinion on AGW is irrelevant anyway. Its like the flat earthers - life has moved on int he world even though the flat earth society still exists

It would be like asking me to express an opinion on the Nueroloigcal causes of Parkinson's disease - I am sure that you would value my opinion in the same light as the leading expert in the field.

You dont even understand the basics of how science functions and propagates. You rely on snake oil salesmen techniques to make yourself appear enlightened on a topic you clearly dont understand or are willing to even accept at any point in the future.

So how are you able to even debate the topic with even a shred of credibility is totally beyond me.

Hello? Hello?? You can come out of the echo chamber now. We know you can emote.
Can you kindly point us to the scientific consensus, as requested.

Here's your big chance to express an original thought about what you know.

Back to top

IP Logged