The basic physics has never been in question. This is not what the consensus is supposed to be about. I thought you at least knew enough about the subject to know what the consensus is claiming to represent.
And this is why the consensus does not exist, because there IS NO consensus on the extent of anthropogenic influence. Opinion in the field varies from positive feedback right through negative feedback.
You're demonstrating a significant lack of understanding of where science and policy meet, and on whose terms. The hockey stick, which is the subject of the M&W paper, and which was the poster-child of the IPCC and a graphic very similar to the hockey stick, purporting to represent global temperatures in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, is under fresh scrutiny by statisticians.
On first take, the statisticians have concluded that proxy reconstructions have such broad error bands (you can draw a flat line straight through the proxy reconstruction for the last millennium and never step out of the error band) that the entire field of proxy reconstruction looks like it might in fact be useless.
If you want to challenge that conclusion, go ahead, but how about dropping the silly hyperbole and the ad hominem insult, yeah?
And this is why the term "global warming" is quietly being dropped, too.
Unnecessary.
There are lots of problems with the GISS dataset, but perhaps greatest among them is the use of interpolation to build fabricated temperature readings over vast unmeasured areas to achieve results which are then asserted as authoritative.
There are grave concerns about whether this amounts to data fabrication, and when unjustifiable adjustments are made to station readings which are then used in the process of interpolation, this may even be regarded as data falsification. Nobody is making the charge of scientific malfeasance, but it's easy to see how this could be an eventuality.
Stating that scientific research of the non-immediately-profitable kind is typically state-funded isn't exactly an appeal to authority. It's a statement of well-known fact.
any reason why i should believe this? any formal education youve received on the subject? any peer reviewed papers youve published?
indeed it doesnt
thats a conclusion ive arrived at based on your posts not on your educational background
worthless ramblings of someone who lacks the ability to receive the education that would give him any sort of authority
right... because your definition of consesus is more correct than mine
youre demonstrating a significant lack of understanding that this is about science and that i dont care one bit about policy and your conspiracy theories
i might agree to that if you drop the citizen "scientist" bull the dismissals of facts and the wild unfounded claims about your ability to understand the finer details of the science
If you look back, you'll see that I was referring to Shotglass's appeal to authority, making no reference to any other part of the argument. The logical fallacy is age-old and it's tired, and reflects badly on the perpetrator, but argument from authority and ad hominem insults are Shotglass's way.
Argument from authority
Argumentum ad hominem, ad hominem circumstantial
Argumentum ad hominem, appeal to authority
Argument from authority, ad hominem tu quoque
Ad hominem circumstantial, ad hominem abusive
Argument from authority, ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial
And now, DWB, it's unnecessary for me to call Shotglass "idiot".
You'll never understand Science/Scientology until you go through expensive enlightenment/degree courses![delete where apropriate] :rolleyes:
Some things are so blatant they can be spotted by even the most average layman, some people need to stop trying to make the Scientific sphere out as some exclusive club/cult only a certain few should be allowed to discuss. (Read: only those who tow the 'official' line)
What I wonder is why certain members are refusing to discuss the issue in this thread, if you're so well armed with scientific explanations and qualifications, then why do you feel the need to try and shout down and question the intelligence of those who oppose you. Surely you'd be able to prove them wrong with your superior knowledge which no pleb can ever comprehend? :rolleyes:
Indeed, 5haz. The proverbial elephant in the room doesn't need a zoologist to identify it. A lot of the dogma in climate science - which I only blame on a small number of advocacy scientists, incidentally. There's clearly lots of GOOD, non-advocacy science going on in environmental sciences - is as easy to see for what it is as an emperor wearing fancy clothes.
I don't think Shotglass is remotely interested in the subject. He's only here to denigrate and abuse, as far as I can tell. I can't think of a single contribution that amounts to more, but if someone could find one, we could have a little play with it.
Shotglass is here to make the point that there's a reason these climatologists go through years and years of schooling to be able to understand/interpret the data they're working with, and to point out that you lack that understanding. That's all.
If you think that schooling is useless, or just indoctrination into some kind of secret club/cult, you're willfully deluding yourself.
Accept that there are things you can't understand without the proper training, because it's a fact. Don't be afraid of authority just because you lack it.
What I find unacceptable is that members who are skeptical of global warming have presented at least some evidence to explain their view, and have at least tried to engage in civil discussion, whereas I'm not seeing any evidence from those who believe, and plenty of discussion of the poster and not the post. Quite right sometimes it really does feel like many of those in favour of AGW are blindly following an idea based on dubious results with absolute faith and trust regardless of whatever evidence there is to the contrary.
The pro AGW argument can't be taken seriously until those in favour of it stop refusing to take on the opposition in fair debates, it all makes me wonder what those 'in the know' are really hiding.
The evidence you're "presenting" is just regurgitated/c&p'd from the professional AGW skeptics/anti-AGW bloggers. Those of us who choose to believe that the experts (who have been rigorously trained to understand climatology) are right are resting on those guys' published results just as much as you guys are resting on the work of the most invested skeptics.
(Feels just as much that you lot are blindly following whatever evidence will prove the AGW "establishment" is an evil pack of liars trying to suck you dry for tax dollars.)
Just don't listen to the statisticians, they're a secret cult right?
Climatologists also tend not to play well with historians, archaeologists, geologists, meteorologists, solar physicists, polar bear experts and certain paleo geophysicists either.
Just sayin...
I think you might be swallowing too much commercial news.
That cannot be used to write off the entire skeptics argument, the truth will still be the same whether I have an extensive understanding of climatology or not , and the attitudes and secretive nature of the work behind the pro AGW argument makes me feel suspicious of it.
Schooling isn't useless, just things become suspicious when scientists start acting as if they have the right to use their qualifications to keep the truth from the public.
Still more evidence that I've seen any of the pro AGW brigade, and of course there isn't any evidence of your 'well trained climatologists' fiddling with data or collecting inadequate data to suit their own ends after all? :rolleyes:
The whole 'you'll never understand' attitude makes it seem like certain AGW believers are hiding something, if their data is so true and correct then why can't they be more open? Simply feeding the media/governments news that the world is going to warm by x amount of degrees due to human influence is not enough, there needs to be proper evidence that 100% hasn't been tampered with.
Having worked in a university for several years after attending one for the better part of a decade, I can say that there are virtually no departments/fields that ever stop squabbling with one another, whether it's out of jealousy/competition over funding/flat out differing views.
I think you might be swallowing too much of the other sort.
I don't get the impression that that's true at all. Neither that this is why Shotglass visits this thread nor that it's necessary to go through years of training to understand the processes used to analyse data.
That's a hell of a leap, DWB. Nobody is suggesting that schooling is useless, neither do I think that schooling is just indoctrination into a club or cult.
Here's a snippet of background: What has developed recently (20-30 years) is what is termed "postnormal science". This is science which doesn't follow the traditional scientific method. For example, it uses consensus of opinion to drive conclusions instead of experimentation, it uses computer models and asserts that model runs are equal to experiments and their results can be treated as evidence, etc.
In postnormal science, a conclusion which under normal scientific process is unproven can still be asserted as scientifically established. Postnormal science is the dominant form of science in certain areas of climate science (NOT all). Post normal science is the vehicle on which some scientists, who traditionally pursued science solely for the sake of gaining greater knowledge and understanding, instead are able to be advocates of particular political or ideological viewpoints and advance those through post-normal science.
There is resistance from within climate science and the matter is very much in the air, but those are the nuts and bolts of it. If you want more info, I can provide. And no, not from any bloody conspiracy websites. All of it from climate scientists, MOST of them what we popularly call "warmists", but who object to the way the science is being conducted in certain areas.
If I can't understand something, I will try harder. If I still can't understand it, I will say so. Just because Shotglass proclaims loudly that I cannot possibly understand something because I haven't studied it to post-doctorate level does not actually mean that I CAN'T understand it. That would be just a little too post-normal for me.
So those graphs I posted up are bunk? It really is the 'hottest year on record evah!!!1!11' for you? Gee, I thought you were more the alternative type.
Requests for evidence by those outside the compliant scientific community have been denied, and the way in which you and Shotglass seem hellbent on passing anyone who doesn't agree off as idiots without presenting evidence of your own and engaging in open debate is evidence of the cult like views that many of those who are pro AGW follow.
I was about to ask the same. Ever noticed that they want you to look at the evidence.. but only CERTAIN evidence. Just the evidence that fits their assertions, not the equivalent evidence that undermines it. Even if it comes from a source no less esteemed. Funny innit?
I have no problem with evidence from peer-reviewed/reliable sources. My problem is with the pervasive attitude on the anti-AGW side (i.e., that academics/scientists are untrustworthy liars and that any kind of authority is really trying to pull one over on you).
And yes, I acknowledge that that's not your stated stance, Sam, but it does come across in some of your posts and more strongly in the posts of others (5haz, BlueFlame, etc).
