Australian Politics Forum - Why is climate science so resilient?

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 34053
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #45 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 1:00pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 11:21am:

Quote:

1) Climate science represents a convergence of evidence

Why do so many scientists and scientific organizations accept that climate change is real, human-caused, and dangerous?

It's not because of any single line of evidence or any one prediction. Rather, says Shermer, "there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry — pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase — that all converge to a singular conclusion." Scientists call this sort of convergence of independent lines of evidence "consilience." Biologist E.O. Wilson wrote a very good book about it.

Climate denialists — indeed, most people — do not fully grasp the implications of consilience. The strength of consilience science does not issue from the validity of any one set of measurements or any one line of evidence. It's not vulnerable to wholesale refutation if anomalies are found in one data set or another. Even if individual lines of evidence are weak or uncertain, their convergence, the fact that many trails keep leading to the same place, can make consilience science strong.

And the convergence also makes consilience science fecund — it suggests and structures further research.

On the other hand poor deniers. . .
Quote:

2) Climate "skepticism" does not
Writes Shermer:

For [climate] skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. ... This they have not done.
I'm not sure the disengaged public understands this: Climate skepticism is not an alternative theory. The climate skeptic community is a hodgepodge, a farrago of theories and conspiracies that range all over the map, from sunspots to adjustments in particular temperature data sets to hoaxes by scientists greedy for grant money. There's no shared alternative framework, just a fixed certainty that the consensus must be wrong.

If the mainstream scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is wrong, then we'll need some other theory that makes sense of present-day changes and harmonizes with data from historical record. Climate skeptics have offered no such theory. Where climate change science is fecund, climate skepticism is moribund, merely destructive.

So we see poor Lees, in the face of the most rapid warming to the highest temperature in millions of years offers “Natural variation” which is manifestly insufficient to explain the heating. Thus, according to poor Lees the record minimum polar sea ice extent is not due to AGW but just “warming.” Pathetic.

Link: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/11/9898098/climate-skeptics-consilience

Are the deniers the opposite to AGW/Climate Change shills?

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #46 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 1:04pm Deniers are frightened little people who don’t want to believe AGW is here and is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. AGW is here. It is warming and drying the southern half of the continent.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

Gnads Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 34053 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #47 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 1:12pm And people like you are gullible Henny Penny types.
Back to top	"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 155781
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #48 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 1:16pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 1:04pm:

Deniers are frightened little people who don’t want to believe AGW is here and is becoming a bigger and bigger problem.

Don't lump me in with deniers.

I have an open mind on the subject.

So far, though, there's no reliable, conclusive evidence that shows AGW is real.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 1:04pm:

AGW is here. It is warming and drying the southern half of the continent.

It might be. It might not be.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21541 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #49 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 2:11pm Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 1:04pm: AGW is here. It is warming and drying the southern half of the continent. So it IS regional warming not AGW?
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21541 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #50 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 2:15pm Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 11:21am: On the other hand poor deniers. . . As opposed to the AGW'ers feeding at the Government trough? Shukla ring any bells?
Back to top	IP Logged

LawfoolNeutral

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #51 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 2:41pm

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 12:10pm:

LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 10:30pm:

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

To which study did they refer? The diabolical Doran and Zimmerman, the miserable Anderegg or the laughable Cook. Each has its faults. For Cook to get his 97% he had to discount most of his 11,000 papers. In the end he used the abstracts of 4,014 papers. And even then they weren't that robust.

Source for the highlighted section please? Or is this your opinion?

Back to top

IP Logged

LawfoolNeutral New Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #52 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 2:44pm [quote author=Gnads Are the deniers the opposite to AGW/Climate Change shills? [/quote] What is a climate change shill? Are you suggesting there is a corporate benefactor, a "greenie" plot?
Back to top	IP Logged

LawfoolNeutral

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #53 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 2:53pm

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 11:04am:

LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 10:21pm:

Speaking of manipulating data, please don't cherry pick. Your argument is based on selective observation, a logical fallacy.

Please explain how two measurements of the same metric, global temperature, both the "hottest evah" at the time is cherrypicking. Either1997 was hotter than 2016 or it wasn't.

Based on the temperatures posted by NOAA, 1997 was warmer than 2016 by about 3º.

What you are saying is you can't compare 2016 to 2015 because that would be cherrypicking. And yet that is exactly what NOAA do in their rankings.

1 = Warmest
Period of Record: 1880–2016 Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
1                         2016          0.94 1.69
2                         2015          0.90 1.62
3                         2014          0.74 1.33
4                         2010          0.70 1.26

Link removed by me

Edit: BTW- how is reporting data, manipulating it?

Parking AGW at this point, just talk about GW. What you are doing is picking 2 data points out of the data supporting a global trend of warming over the last couple centuries to back up a point, and excluding the rest of the data.

Just perform an internet search for "cherry picking science". It's a no no. And regarded as manipulation of data to alter results. A trick as old as science itself.

Make sense?

Edit: Oh and I have no doubt you'll find plenty of articles about how cherry picking is used to CONFIRM GW. Thats not a logical fallacy, just confirmation bias.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:11pm by LawfoolNeutral »

IP Logged

LawfoolNeutral

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #54 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:02pm

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 2:11pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 1:04pm:

AGW is here. It is warming and drying the southern half of the continent.

So it IS regional warming not AGW? Wink

The position of GW science is that global warming trends will increase the overall energy in the atmosphere. This results in more violent storms for example, and larger extremes in local weather patterns. Overall, the trend globally is warmer, but this position also explains the crazy blizzards and cold snaps in various parts of the world.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21541
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #55 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:08pm

"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. '"

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

"However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

"As can be seen on the above example for Endorsement Level 1, only 65 papers are identified as “quantifying AGW as 50%+”. Excluding the “No Positions”, there are 4011 papers classified in total, so we find that the number of papers agreeing that “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” is only a tiny 1.6%, far from the 97% claimed."

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/

Included in the last is the methodology used. I have no idea if SKS still allows access to the study or if it has materially changed.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21541
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #56 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:26pm

LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 2:53pm:

What you are doing is picking 2 data points out of the data supporting a global trend of warming over the last couple centuries to back up a point, and excluding the rest of the data.

Nope. I am picking data from NOAA's website for both 1997 and 2016. They were the ones in 1997 saying it was the warmest year ever and provided the figures. Similarly in 2016 they provided the global temperature and again proclaimed it the warmest year ever.

So we need to compare what they actually said about these warmest years ever.

"The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record"

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

" Remarkably, this is the third consecutive year a new global annual temperature record has been set. The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F)."

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613

So then we compare what the two warmest years show.

1997 - 62.45ºF
2016 - 1.69°F + 57.0°F =58.69ºF

So that is a comparison of two of the warmest years ever. I didn't disregard anything.

Back to top

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #57 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:26pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 12:22pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 11:18am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 11:16am:

Nope, the greenhouse effect has been demonstrated and measured.

AGW is merely a theory.

I don't think ...

There's no need to explain any further.

There you go again misrepresenting the posts of others.

This is why you are considered as nothing more as a filthy piece of sh1t liar, who is too stupid to know the meaning of 'a theory'.

Ya fkken loser. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21541 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #58 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:28pm LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:02pm: Overall, the trend globally is warmer, but this position also explains the crazy blizzards and cold snaps in various parts of the world. And of course disregards other periods of crazy weather before AGW. Or don't you think "crazy weather" existed?
Back to top	IP Logged

LawfoolNeutral

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #59 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:49pm

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 3:26pm:

LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 2:53pm:

What you are doing is picking 2 data points out of the data supporting a global trend of warming over the last couple centuries to back up a point, and excluding the rest of the data.

Nope. I am picking data from NOAA's website for both 1997 and 2016. They were the ones in 1997 saying it was the warmest year ever and provided the figures. Similarly in 2016 they provided the global temperature and again proclaimed it the warmest year ever.

So we need to compare what they actually said about these warmest years ever.

"The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record"

link removed by me

" Remarkably, this is the third consecutive year a new global annual temperature record has been set. The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F)."

link removed by me

So then we compare what the two warmest years show.

1997 - 62.45ºF
2016 - 1.69°F + 57.0°F =58.69ºF

So that is a comparison of two of the warmest years ever. I didn't disregard anything.

From the first link;
"Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time."

Did you miss that?

Back to top

IP Logged