There are very few scientists who dismiss the theory of greenhouse warming, however, within the science community there is a far more nuanced range of opinion than most people realize.

The Left media has rather successfully propagated a binary mentality on the issue.

Specifically:
1. greenhouse warming exists or it doesn't.
2. If it exists, it's dangerous, so we must act now to mitigate it.

Sure, 97% of climate scientists do accept that man is responsible for climate change but how many accept that it's dangerous?

It should be noted that the specified 2 degrees C above pre industrial temperature was actually promoted by an economist and not a scientist.

Of course the main area of conjecture among scientists is the specified (modeled) number for climate sensitivity.

There are several prominent scientists who believe that the actual value is below the range specified by IPCC. The level of uncertainty stems from the assigned magnitude and direction of feedbacks.    

Art Vandelay wrote on Aug 13^th, 2015 at 1:08am:

Unquantified argument: very,... ahem, convincing propaganda but for whom?

No one perhaps? 

lee wrote on Aug 13^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:


Actually that is not how values for parameters are arrived at.

Your lack of understanding of basic scientific and mathematical principles is astonishing to say the least.

Parameters and variables can have theoretical and/or experimental/analytical values for a pre determined set of of conditions and of course have a statistical uncertainty attached to them.

The only thing that is cherry picked out of thin air, is your delusional denialism and crack pot political rhetorical dogma

Apologise in writing for being exposed in public

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13^th, 2015 at 12:46pm:



How much has ECS changed in 30 years of climate science? How many billions of dollars have been spent on a nil result.

lee wrote on Aug 13^th, 2015 at 12:55pm:

lee wrote on Aug 13^th, 2015 at 12:57pm:


It's Amazing isnt it?

These lottery parameter values you worship can't seem to generate one single climate model that predicts declining or even static global temperatures  as CO2 levels rise.

Where is your climate model that supports your coal based mental derangement?

lee wrote on Aug 13^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2015 at 5:12pm:



They probably could - it would be just as scientific. Which is probably why they don't.

lee wrote on Aug 13^th, 2015 at 6:25pm:


No - it just wouldnt pass the peer reviewed scientific process

Do you know what that process involves lee?

Have you heard of it before lee?

I can provide you with some very useful resources and study material so that you can get up to speed. (I still have my high school science class notes)

let me know if you wish to book some tutorials - my rates are expensive, but worthwhile lee

cheers mate

....oh, and well done

we are all very proud of your enormous work ethic and moral deceitfulness in this particular forum.

well done mate

Rider wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 6:33am:

Why is peer review not a scientific process? 

Rider wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 6:33am:


Peer review is a critical part of the scientific process

You are confusing the overall scientific process with the scientific METHOD which scientists use to discover and analyse new phenomena. (an analogy would be a post graduate student having written up a PhD thesis. The thesis is sent to independent scientific experts in that specific field who determine its worthiness for admission into PhD-ness - the student must also defend their thesis before the examiners. This step will examine everything that was done in the PhD candidature and evaluate the validity of the results and conclusions made etc)

Think of the scientific peer review process as a final stage of validation (at that particular time of publication- of course science is littered with paradigm shifts and collapse of theories due to NEW ways of thinking and NEW data, observations and evidence.)

I thought you understood the basics of how science works as a profession.

Perhaps it explains why you are so confused about the high school levels science that underpins the FACT called AGW?

Rider wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 6:50pm:


In comes Rider with his bigotry and ignorance and says "Wrong. Take your snake oil and go" without follow ups, validation or justification.

Rider exposed again as a crack pot rigth wing freak maggot who hates children and doesnt understand science

Well done Rider you stinkin freak maggot puppet clown sloth.

Great to have you back by the way - the stench in here was becoming barely acceptable for a short period of time.

Well done for re-stinkin the joint with your religious madness

cheers mate

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:


λολ

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 8:53pm:


really?

What is the peer review process for an article published in NATURE or the Journal of Physics, compared to say the Herald Sun, Readers Digest or Woman's Weekly?

Obviously your posts aren't peer reviewed

Are you embarrassed yet, or shall I continue?

Apologise and leave the premises forthwith you clown maggot right wing sloth puppet

So why are you coupling the SCIENTIFIC peer review process with the publishing industry?

The scientific peer review stage is an important element of the scientific process. The "scientific method" is not to be confused with the peer reviewed process.

The PhD thesis examination stage is a prime example of peer review. And guess what? When the thesis passes this stage, the PhD is able to be published.

When a scientific article or thesis fails the peer review process is may be due to a variety of reasons. The scientific method used may be fine, but perhaps the work isnt novel or merely a derivative of previous work.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 9:54pm:


lol

peer review is integral to how Science functions, progresses and most importantly deals with paradigm shifts.

Obviously you believe that science operates in a vacuum and is carried out by androids.

well done gizmo - is it any wonder you deny AGW and cling to your religion of hatred an deranged puppetry?

Apologise and leave

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 10:09pm:


who said it was necessary?

A person can conduct scientific experiments outside the 'scientific" system and publish their own data and results.

this is not what is being debated here.

read the previous posts to understand better what this is actually about.

...one can also set up a gym in their garage and break the world weight lifting record - doesn't mean their name will be in the Record Books

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 10:25pm:


No, but that is a 'review board' not "peer review".

Are the PhD theses reviewed by other students??

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 10:28pm:


No, it does NOT. How can there be "peer review" with (for example) a new discipline???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 10:31pm:


give me an example of a new discipline and how it encountered problems with peer review

take your time gizmo

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 10:53pm:


you still dont understand how the process works.

Profoundly novel work can still be assessed by your peers for adhering to the basic scientific method and being mathematically consistent.

Paul Dirac's PhD thesis for example, submitted in his early 20s managed to get him a Nobel prize in Physics - a very rare achievement. He mathematically predicted the existence of the anti-electron (or anti matter). It was several years later that experimental evidence verified his mathematical/theoretical prediction.

There were no physicists available that were experts in the area of anti-matter - it wasnt even an experimental area research yet.

What the peer review process demands in this case are reviewers/examiners that can best assess the fundamentals and basic scientific claims contained in the thesis.

the scientific method itself hasnt been re-invented and the logic and axioms of mathematics are well understood and can be applied.

In his book Massive: The Higgs Boson and the Great Hunt in Science, Ian Sample told the story of Dennis Sciama (later PhD supervisor to Stephen Hawking at Cambridge) who one day rushed to his PhD supervisor’s office and knocked on the door.

When he was called in, he said: “Professor Dirac, I’ve just thought of a way of relating the formation of stars to cosmological questions, shall I tell you about it?”

Dirac just coldly said “No”, leaving poor Sciama little choice other than to walk back out.

Despite being a difficult supervisor, many still want Dirac’s supervision because his laureate aura is too compelling.

It adds value to your PhD thesis. This is what matters most.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 11:08pm:


Actually I DO understand how the process works...what you obviously do NOT understand, is that getting someone to 'review' your work is convenient, but in NO way 'required'... sure it helps to give the impression that other people agree with your conclusions, but that really doesn't mean that your theory doesn't exist, if it's not 'peer reviewed', it just means that the people you may have called 'idiots' don't like your ideas.

In all honesty, you could produce a scientific theory that 2+2=5....and as long as it was internally 'consistent' it might be correct, but it still wouldn't pass 'peer review'.

That IS, after all, the entire point of the scientific method..Consensus isn't relevant, 'proof' and logic IS

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 11:36pm:


proof and logic are tested by the peer review process gizmo.

The peer reviewers/examiners must arrive at a consensus

Are you aware of how many instances of "proof" and "logic" that have failed under peer review scrutiny?

you have constructed an erroneous misunderstood scientific bubble that has burst around your ears gizmo

You keep digging that hole deeper and deeper....

You will reach the centre of the earth very soon if you're not careful gizmo



...this is exactly WHY the AGW denialist stance doesnt stand up to any rudimentary scrutiny - i

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 11:57pm:


you dont understand the basics of paradigm shifts - read some Popper or Bruno Latour (good start to understanding how revolutions work in the scientific realm)

Galileo's work was peer reviewed by the way - unfortunately for him his examiners were in the catholic Church - the Vatican I believe.

And your AGW denialist religion also fails peer review scrutiny - and this time, its not the Catholic Church that is looking at your crack pot ideas.
(in fact they arent looking at them at all because they arent scientific in any way shape or form)

perhaps you can have Dr Sircus look at your theories - I believe he can cure for cancer with baking soda and magnesium tablets, as well as knowing how the worlds climate works

gizmo, you are definitely NOT a sceptic.

Look up the definition of the word and how it pertains to the scientific process.

scepticism is a very important element of how Science progresses and pushes human knowledge

And everybody in this forum has seen first hand that you struggle to grasp the basics of how science works.

So well done gizmo - well done in stinkin' out this forum once again.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:49am:


it has already been demonstrated that you are not a sceptic and have publicly denounced the basic tenants of the scientific process.

Which is actually quite a feat, considering that you neither understand scepticism nor how science functions in a mature social setting.

And apologising for lying about being a sceptic will not save your decaying carcass now gizmo

You stand condemned as a deranged clown puppet maggot who emits the foul stench of Hades.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 8:53pm:


Correct. Publishers wanted a proof reading service, this is the basis of the peer review dogma. Open to 'pal' reviews and fragrant abuse and simple not a valid test of any science.

Fits in nicely with the snake oil spruiking spivs like monkey.

MOTR wrote on Aug 13^th, 2015 at 12:21am:


Climate change has been with us since the Earth formed into a molten piece of rock, otherwise it would still be so.

No matter what humans do they cannot control climate change on the Earth.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) on the other hand is a hoax by the oligarchy to create a $2 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market so they can tax you and me on the air we breath while they play their games with government and peoples money.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 9:54pm:


Too right gizmo.

When science with its theories gets proven by observations and data in accordance with that theory and is then documented and implemented, then the science becomes engineering.

Science does not rely on consensus and peer review.

Didn't Cambridge University throw out Newton's Principia Mathematica because they couldn't understand what Newton had accomplished.

So much for peer reviewed.

Ajax wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:33pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:33pm:

Engineering is an applied science: not anymore complicated than that!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 11:57pm:

Gizmo is still talking about consensus of opinion to waste the kids time!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 2:17pm:


Professional, expert opinion.

gizmo_3466 believes there is only one type of opinion. Every opinion is of equal weight. This is why Courts of law put expert witnesses up in the dock to swear under oath and deliver "OPINIONS" and then the prosecution (or defense) grabs a complete stranger from the street and puts them on the stand to give an opposite OPINION. Case closed according to gizmo's Sircus world of puppetry and clown maggotry

gizmo_4266 is one very strange digger - keeps deepening the hole of disgrace deeper and deeper the more he tries to defend his lunacy and crack pot AGW denialism.

Is there a limit to gizmo's intense hatred of the little innocent children and his devotion and love of the Peabody Coal Company and their profit margins???

May aswell get Paul Kelly into every courtroom in the country and solve all crime!



Done 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 7:34pm:


How can an Australian musician solve crimes??