The Nonsense That is Global Warming

[VillagePlank]

I believe that there are cycles within cycles within cycles.

A misconception. If the weather ever acted like sine waves, then Fourier analysis would certainly be able to find them. Given our current skill at weather forecasting, as I'm sure you can guess, Fourier analysis, although it has spotted some, cannot be used for weather prediction being that other temporally local forces always have the upper hand against most of the cycles.

[laserguy]

Have a look at this!

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/graphic.html

Don't know much about this guy at all,only just stumbled upon this,but for all those like me who know that AGW is total guff will love it! Have a look at his entire site,I foresee much teeth gnashing from the enviros! I'm sorry to sound gleeful,but it's about time Al Gore had an adversary,someone to fight 'our' side,if you will. One day commonsense WILL out. Don't know when exactly,but the real reasons for everything behind the curbing of CO2 emissions will be known to all,the least of which being climate change. The political lid cannot be kept on forever.

Anyway,I'm gonna retire from the enviro change threads as of now ( I've said that before but really mean it this time )because as many have noted they aren't getting anywhere. We can argue our opinion forever but our fate lies out of our hands,be it at the hands of (natural) climate change or the mad politicians who control us. I'm gonna observe these threads daily and see how the passage of time and world events change views. At the risk of sounding insulting (I really don't mean to be but can't think of a better way to phrase it ),if the penny hasn't dropped by now regarding the truth and motives behind creating a disaster scenario out of a natural,normal process then it's unlikely ever to. Think world population,drinking from an ever dwindling cup,rich countries becoming third world countries,nuclear conflict etc. Oh yes there are indeed pressing needs to reduce CO2 emissions(which only come from fossil fuel burning)but to alter the course of climate (tell me when to stop laughing) most certainly isn't one of them. Meanwhile,there are nations in the Arctic Circle sticking their flags on untapped oil reserves and as Calrission noted elsewhere they're on about tapping vast reservoirs of methane to burn. Anything we can lay our hands on,let's burn it!! There's no other way,cover the globe with blasted wind turbines,lace the coastline with tide power generators,embrace nuclear(but we can't run cars or modern manufacturing industry on it),fill the gaps between wind turbines with bio-crops etc,etc. All as nothing when the oil and gas has gone or there isn't enough to go around to sustain established economies. Seeing as it's Xmas,I'll leave you with a little teaser: What do AGW and Santa Claus have in common? D'ya give in? Here's a clue,Santa isn't real except in the imagination....

If I've upset anyone,remember we only differ in opinion and that's no reason to fall out. Look at me an' the missus after 16 years!! See y'all.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I looked at his first diagram. Don't think I'll bother with the rest.

[Hiya]

Some people think on such linear terms...literally.

[androcles]

...and what about this...?

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Carbon.htm

..this is fun and makes me feel...ALIVE!

[Stratos Ferric]

I looked at his first diagram. Don't think I'll bother with the rest.

What, you didn't look at the presentation showing that CO2 isn't all bad news and the correlation of temperature to everything apart from CO2 (I like the way that coal suddenly has stopped being a hydrocarbon by the way, though I'm sure that's just a slight oversight). I liked the slides at the end that showed how US crop and hardwood yields are increasing, and that with higher temperatures the voume (and cost) of imports is falling.

I also liked the IPCC debunk piece, until the very last paragraph where whoever the authors are start to complain about 'taxes already being levied'.

The thing that continues to confound me is the use of, and support for, arguments that say 'CO2 is increasing more or less linearly yet global temperature oscillates up and down' therefore CO2 cannot be to blame. It's like saying petrol doesn't drive a car because even though the throttle is in a constant position the car speeds and slows: hills, head winds, road surface, bends; all might speed or slow me down, but that doesn't mean that the basic process going on in the engine is not constant. Above all other gross simplifications, this argument that 'there can only be one thing ongoing at any one time' is bizarre, not least coming from people who would assume a position of some knowledge in order to refute the AGW argument. To make so base a mistake is akin to a forger getting the detail of a £5 note correct, but putting a picture of the King of Norway on the note instead of our own Queen.

[jethro]

This is the best bit of advice I've heard in a long time....It wasn't originally aimed at Climate Change studies, but I do wish it could be circulated to all the scientists involved.

IRENE PEPPERBERG

Research Associate, Psychology, Harvard University; Author, The Alex Studies

The Fallacy of Hypothesis Testing

I've begun to rethink the way we teach students to engage in scientific research. I was trained, as a chemist, to use the classic scientific method: Devise a testable hypothesis, and then design an experiment to see if the hypothesis is correct or not. And I was told that this method is equally valid for the social sciences. I've changed my mind that this is the best way to do science. I have three reasons for this change of mind.

First, and probably most importantly, I've learned that one often needs simply to sit and observe and learn about one's subject before even attempting to devise a testable hypothesis. What are the physical capacities of the subject? What is the social and ecological structure in which it lives? Does some anecdotal evidence suggest the form that the hypothesis should take? Few granting agencies are willing to provide support for this step, but it is critical to the scientific process, particularly for truly innovative research. Often, a proposal to gain observational experience is dismissed as being a "fishing expedition"…but how can one devise a workable hypothesis to test without first acquiring basic knowledge of the system, and how better to obtain such basic knowledge than to observe the system without any preconceived notions?

Second, I've learned that truly interesting questions really often can't be reduced to a simple testable hypothesis, at least not without being somewhat absurd. "Can a parrot label objects?" may be a testable hypothesis, but actually isn't very interesting…what is interesting, for example, is how that labeling compares to the behavior of a young child, exactly what type of training might enable such learning and what type of training is useless, how far can such labeling transfer across exemplars, and….Well, you get the picture…the exciting part is a series of interrelated questions that arise and expand almost indefinitely.

Third, I've learned that the scientific community's emphasis on hypothesis-based research leads too many scientists to devise experiments to prove, rather than test, their hypotheses. Many journal submissions lack any discussion of alternative competing hypotheses: Researchers don't seem to realize that collecting data that are consistent with their original hypothesis doesn't mean that it is unconditionally true. Alternatively, they buy into the fallacy that absence of evidence for something is always evidence of its absence.

I'm all for rigor in scientific research — but let's emphasize the gathering of knowledge rather than the proving of a point.

[Roo]

This is the best bit of advice I've heard in a long time....It wasn't originally aimed at Climate Change studies, but I do wish it could be circulated to all the scientists involved.

Jethro...have you actually ever MET a scientist....do you actually know anything about science? Or do you just have one massive great chip against all in that community? I would suggest that you contact a university department and ask to go and meet some of the researchers working for them, put all your 'questions' to them and then come back here and tell us all this.......

Researchers don't seem to realize that collecting data that are consistent with their original hypothesis doesn't mean that it is unconditionally true. Alternatively, they buy into the fallacy that absence of evidence for something is always evidence of its absence.

This is utterly ridiculous....as if academia would be that stupid....there are actually huge tomes written about negative evidence, false positives, designing and intepreting methodology, qualitative AND quantitative research, etc, etc, etc.....a very important area of academia is in looking at how and why researchers do things.

I say again, go talk to some academics, then come back here.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Roo

[jethro]

Oooo, grumpy; fall out the wrong side of the bed this morning?

You're entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine, I don't make personal comments about you or anyone else on here, why do you feel the need to make them about me? The option to ignore something you disagree with is always available, no need for tirades you know.

And for the record, I've read many similar comments from one scientist about another in the world of climate science, this isn't a lone voice of dissent, merely one I found eloquent. Ideal standards exist in all careers, all walks of life; how many adhere to them let alone aspire to them, is open to question in every field. That's no chip I'm struggling under the weight of, just acceptance that we humans are a long way from being perfect. Oh and knowing that "peer reviewed" is often no more than one set of approved colleagues and friends checking out the work of others. There are many instances of requests from the sceptic side of the debate to look at data from the pro side, which are declined. A prime example is the on-going requests for the man responsible for the global temperature data used and quoted by the IPCC, to make his data available to all; he consistently refuses to make any data available or answer questions. His reasons given thus far? Well he's quoted as saying "I'm not going to make twenty years worth of work available, for you to tear to shreds"; as he hasn't sued the publications who have quoted him thus, then I can only assume those quotes to be accurate. The data should be able to be read by anyone, as it is of prime importance in all this, the foundation stone of the AGW theory, then any person, scientist or otherwise, should not be able to tear it to shreds. If the scientist responsible believes it to be possible, then what does that say about the data? Surely it should be "unconditionally true"?

Again, no chip on my shoulder, awareness of some of the disagreements between fellow scientists, yes. Do those requesting such information have chips on their shoulders too?

[Roo]

Again, no chip on my shoulder, awareness of some of the disagreements between fellow scientists, yes. Do those requesting such information have chips on their shoulders too?

Not at all, as they do so armed with facts and evidence instead of a vague feeling. Using a quote from a woman who studies parrots to damn the whole of climate science is just plain ridiculous.

All academia is about questioning one's own results and those of others. You don't seem to get this: if you're not rigorous and don't spot your mistakes first then you can bet some other so-and-so will and will have great pleasure publishing a paper saying so!

Academia spends a lot of time looking at all aspects of any particular subject, pushing a subject to its limits is what it's all about: your posts clearly show your ignorance of this.

You go on endlessly about the fallibilty of scientists, but hold others up to be infallible, if they fit your argument: that is just sloppy!

Jethro, how about you actually put your money where your mouth is and go and get qualified in climate science? Then you might have some grounds to attack the HUGE body of researchers who can show, chapter and verse, why you are misguided.

Or, as a first step, as I suggested before, instead of using rumours, speculation and second-hand hearsay peddled on the internet, you might actually like to contact some of those you so readily dismiss and ask them face to face about all your theories: then you can come back and tell us why they are all so wrong. Meet those in the field, go to conferences, get yourself published (if you can back up what you say, any journal will readily accept a paper) and then maybe you'll have grounds for such regular attacks.

Until then, it really isn't worth the time and effort.

Blocking?....yes, I will be using this facility in future. As for getting out of bed grumpy? not at all: I'm just fed up with the endless numbers of environmental threads which have no basis in evidence and which continue to recycle the same-old-same-old despite pages and pages and pages of evidence proving them to be incorrect.

[Devonian]

Oooo, grumpy; fall out the wrong side of the bed this morning?

You're entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine, I don't make personal comments about you or anyone else on here, why do you feel the need to make them about me? The option to ignore something you disagree with is always available, no need for tirades you know.

And for the record, I've read many similar comments from one scientist about another in the world of climate science, this isn't a lone voice of dissent, merely one I found eloquent. Ideal standards exist in all careers, all walks of life; how many adhere to them let alone aspire to them, is open to question in every field. That's no chip I'm struggling under the weight of, just acceptance that we humans are a long way from being perfect. Oh and knowing that "peer reviewed" is often no more than one set of approved colleagues and friends checking out the work of others. There are many instances of requests from the sceptic side of the debate to look at data from the pro side, which are declined. A prime example is the on-going requests for the man responsible for the global temperature data used and quoted by the IPCC, to make his data available to all; he consistently refuses to make any data available or answer questions. His reasons given thus far? Well he's quoted as saying "I'm not going to make twenty years worth of work available, for you to tear to shreds"; as he hasn't sued the publications who have quoted him thus, then I can only assume those quotes to be accurate. The data should be able to be read by anyone, as it is of prime importance in all this, the foundation stone of the AGW theory, then any person, scientist or otherwise, should not be able to tear it to shreds. If the scientist responsible believes it to be possible, then what does that say about the data? Surely it should be "unconditionally true"?

Again, no chip on my shoulder, awareness of some of the disagreements between fellow scientists, yes. Do those requesting such information have chips on their shoulders too?

Jethro, as Roo says, why don't you ask the scientist(s) involved (and I know who he is if you don't know) about this? Why take the word of his attackers as gospel?

Edit:if you do, make sure you have the quote right and it's context. I'm not sure you have.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Devonian

[jethro]

Not at all, as they do so armed with facts and evidence instead of a vague feeling. Using a quote from a woman who studies parrots to damn the whole of climate science is just plain ridiculous.

All academia is about questioning one's own results and those of others. You don't seem to get this: if you're not rigorous and don't spot your mistakes first then you can bet some other so-and-so will and will have great pleasure publishing a paper saying so!

Academia spends a lot of time looking at all aspects of any particular subject, pushing a subject to its limits is what it's all about: your posts clearly show your ignorance of this.

You go on endlessly about the fallibilty of scientists, but hold others up to be infallible, if they fit your argument: that is just sloppy!

Jethro, how about you actually put your money where your mouth is and go and get qualified in climate science? Then you might have some grounds to attack the HUGE body of researchers who can show, chapter and verse, why you are misguided.

Or, as a first step, as I suggested before, instead of using rumours, speculation and second-hand hearsay peddled on the internet, you might actually like to contact some of those you so readily dismiss and ask them face to face about all your theories: then you can come back and tell us why they are all so wrong. Meet those in the field, go to conferences, get yourself published (if you can back up what you say, any journal will readily accept a paper) and then maybe you'll have grounds for such regular attacks.

Until then, it really isn't worth the time and effort.

Blocking?....yes, I will be using this facility in future. As for getting out of bed grumpy? not at all: I'm just fed up with the endless numbers of environmental threads which have no basis in evidence and which continue to recycle the same-old-same-old despite pages and pages and pages of evidence proving them to be incorrect.

Well, if you're not grumpy, you're doing a damn fine impersonation of one who is. What's up? Expecting snow but haven't got any? Join the club.

Are you a qualified climate scientist Roo? Are any of us on here? No, thought not. Had any papers accepted into any journals? The only one I know of on here who has is P3, as far as I'm aware the actual paper was an opinion poll, peer reviewed and accepted, but an opinion poll none the less.

Have you or Dev got any personal contact details? Have either of you had it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak? Or have you, as I have done read lots, both reports and peer reviewed papers?

Here's a few contact details for you both. I'm sure you'll find them obliging, I contacted Ernst Beck a while ago, invited him to come on here and defend his paper and answer questions, he happily did so.

I agree Roo, the threads do ramble, often in ever decreasing circles but I have posted many, many peer reviewed papers, so to say as you do that the sceptic view has "no basis in evidence" is a curious and some would say, ill informed view to have. There is a great deal of contradictory science and evidence, from both sides. There are an awful lot of people on here who support wholeheartedly the AGW science, I prefer to investigate the other side of the fence also; how can one be objective without first looking at all the evidence? I for one, accept the impact CO2 has had on climate and temperature but wonder if it's impact has been over-played somewhat. As I've said many times before, my interest is the percentage game; natural versus anthropogenic. To decipher the signal of one, you need to accurately assess the other; even the most ardent of AGW scientist readily accepts we know no where near enough to date, to fully understand natural variations and drivers, let alone how they all fit together.

A scientist who will not allow access to his work should be questioned, how else will the expected high standards of scientific integrity you believe so passionately in, be maintained otherwise?

[Devonian]

A scientist who will not allow access to his work should be questioned, how else will the expected high standards of scientific integrity you believe so passionately in, be maintained otherwise?

You keep repeating this allegation. Bar that over quoted out of context quote you quote what evidence do you have to support the allegation?

As an aside I heard well known CRU climatologist Dr Phil Jones on the radio a few days ago. It's worth a listen.

[jethro]

You keep repeating this allegation. Bar that over quoted out of context quote you quote what evidence do you have to support the allegation?

As an aside I heard well known CRU climatologist Dr Phil Jones on the radio a few days ago. It's worth a listen.

Haven't quoted anything out of context, impossible to do when you post the entire article as I did in one of the other threads. To date, no legal proceedings have been issued, so presumably the article was true; also to date, the raw data has not been released to other scientists. Ludicrous really, if the data is as sound as claimed, then the easiest way to silence critics is to release it and let it be examined. The covert nature of refusing access is fuelling the speculation.

Thanks for the link, I'll have a listen when the speakers are up and running again - they're still packed away for the epic wall knocking down/joist replacement/slate laying saga.

[Roo]

Well, if you're not grumpy, you're doing a damn fine impersonation of one who is. What's up? Expecting snow but haven't got any? Join the club.

Are you a qualified climate scientist Roo? Are any of us on here? No, thought not. Had any papers accepted into any journals? The only one I know of on here who has is P3, as far as I'm aware the actual paper was an opinion poll, peer reviewed and accepted, but an opinion poll none the less.

Have you or Dev got any personal contact details? Have either of you had it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak? Or have you, as I have done read lots, both reports and peer reviewed papers?

A scientist who will not allow access to his work should be questioned, how else will the expected high standards of scientific integrity you believe so passionately in, be maintained otherwise?

What? I think displacement onto the issue of snow just about sums it up. I've said why I'm fed up and it's down to lack of understanding and an absence of intellectual rigour.

I am not a qualified climate scientist, but as with all matters, am prepared to go with the opinions of the many, many researchers who are. What I am not prepared to entertain are the thoughts and opinions of those who do not have the evidence to hand nor who comprehend the basics of scientific knowledge and analysis.

Of course I haven't got any published papers in climate journals (after all, I am not claiming that I can refute the claims of the qualified), but I have got published papers in archaeology, used to lecture and am involved with one of the most respected peer-reviewed journals in archaeology. I know how the system works and I do know about academia in general. My partner worked as an anti-matter physicist, at UCL, and has many colleagues in the field of atmospheric physics and chemistry, throughout universities across the world. He knows his science and is widely published.

Have you, personally, contacted the scientist in question who won't let his research out? If not, I would suggest that you do before taking it as read that he won't release his data.

[As an aside, it might be appropriate to check that all the people whose emails you have put on public display have given their permission for you to do so. I know that has been a big issue on other sites, and I believe you also raised the issue of your permission not being sought in Fergus' blog?].

No-one has ever denied that there are areas of climate science which still need research, or need clarifying, BUT the main picture is solid, and the huge amount of ill researched 'data' and internet mumbo-jumbo that claims it is not is just that. To keep raising such issues across multiple threads does not make them anymore scientifically valid.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Roo

[jethro]

What? I think displacement onto the issue of snow just about sums it up. I've said why I'm fed up and it's down to lack of understanding and an absence of intellectual rigour.

I am not a qualified climate scientist, but as with all matters, am prepared to go with the opinions of the many, many researchers who are. What I am not prepared to entertain are the thoughts and opinions of those who do not have the evidence to hand nor who comprehend the basics of scientific knowledge and analysis.

Of course I haven't got any published papers in climate journals (after all, I am not claiming that I can refute the claims of the qualified), but I have got published papers in archaeology, used to lecture and am involved with one of the most respected peer-reviewed journals in archaeology. I know how the system works and I do know about academia in general. My partner worked as an anti-matter physicist, at UCL, and has many colleagues in the field of atmospheric physics and chemistry, throughout universities across the world. He knows his science and is widely published.

Have you, personally, contacted the scientist in question who won't let his research out? If not, I would suggest that you do before taking it as read that he won't release his data.

[As an aside, it might be appropriate to check that all the people whose emails you have put on public display have given their permission for you to do so. I know that has been a big issue on other sites, and I believe you also raised the issue of your permissio

n not being sought in Fergus' blog?].

No-one has ever denied that there are areas of climate science which still need research, or need clarifying, BUT the main picture is solid, and the huge amount of ill researched 'data' and internet mumbo-jumbo that claims it is not is just that. To keep raising such issues across multiple threads does not make them anymore scientifically valid.

Roo, I could have made personal comments this morning as retaliation to your "chip on the shoulder" comment you made to me. I didn't, I chose to make light of the potentially inflammatory situation by making a reference to the expected snow and the obvious potential for excitement/disappointment. As your post here demonstrates :

Post #121

Cumulonimbus

******

Group: Members

Posts: 1,452

Joined: 17-January 05

From: St. Albans, Herts

Member No.: 2,564

Snow! We have snow!!!!

The tiniest flurry, but hey, it counts! whistling.gif laugh.gif

--------------------

The expectation of snow and obvious excitement at it's arrival, did feature today.

If you are not a climate scientist and you make posts here, based upon your layman's views and interpretations, then why am I expected to:

"Jethro, how about you actually put your money where your mouth is and go and get qualified in climate science? Then you might have some grounds to attack the HUGE body of researchers who can show, chapter and verse, why you are misguided."

Why are your views more acceptable, more valid than my equally layman's views and interpretations?

Your choice to go with the many, many researchers who are, is entirely your choice. My choice is to listen and research BOTH sides of the AGW debate. Again, the difference between our rights is what, exactly?

Lack of understanding and absence of intellectual rigour: mine or yours? Or are you referring to the actual scientists?

"Have you, personally, contacted the scientist in question who won't let his research out? If not, I would suggest that you do before taking it as read that he won't release his data":

No I haven't. Have you contacted him to see if he has or intends to? Perhaps you could clarify what you would find acceptable when it comes to reading and reporting things in posts. Your work is in archaeology, my original career and training was in publishing, I know how the system works; if the article was fundamentally untrue, the journalist and publication would have either been sued or forced to print a public apology, neither have happened.

The e-mail contacts I posted are all public domain, all of those people would welcome contact from members of the public seeking a greater understanding of the science of AGW and the unsettled issues. I myself have been in contact with many of them, one of their greatest concerns is how to make the general public more aware that the science is not a done deal.

Yes, I complained to Fergus; I think many people would if a post made on here raising a genuine desire to see the pro side of the argument, a heartfelt effort to ensure I had not become entrenched in my views, was not being pig-headed was then taken and used to demonstrate what a fool I was, how much smarter he was ( indeed mention of the expected kind of replies made to my question on here) as opposed to his smarter response, would have annoyed many who had bothered to reply to me. The promise to further up-date his readers with any response I made in the "make me believe" thread beggars further belief. If you're going to go to the effort to create a blog, at least make the effort to be original instead of gleaning ideas from another forum, and from a poster who you deride.

"the huge amount of ill researched 'data' and internet mumbo-jumbo that claims it is not is just that":

Have you actually bothered to read the dozens of peer reviewed papers I and others have made on here?

I respect you views Roo, and your right to hold them. I have a profoundly held belief that all opinions and views are equally valid; the last time I checked that included me and mine too.

Edited January 3, 2008 by jethro

[Roo]

If you are not a climate scientist and you make posts here, based upon your layman's views and interpretations, then why am I expected to:

Because you are attacking them, I am not: I uphold their experience, training and knowledge, and would not deem to have a go at something I am not qualified to criticize. Can you say the same?

Why are your views more acceptable, more valid than my equally layman's views and interpretations?

See above

No I haven't. Have you contacted him to see if he has or intends to?

No, but then I don't have a problem with his information: the onus is on you, not me, as you are the one who is critical of him.

I know how the system works; if the article was fundamentally untrue, the journalist and publication would have either been sued or forced to print a public apology, neither have happened.

Glad to hear that you have worked in the academic environment, have been party to the peer review process and have worked in academic publishing. Or is that not the case?

Do you really think that everyone goes around suing everyone for what is said ON THE INTERNET? Perhaps he doesn't feel that it is worthy of the time and effort involved. Perhaps he feels he does not have to justify himself because he is sure of his integrity, as are his peers? Or maybe he's also sick of the constant internet rumour mill and doesn't wish to lower himself?.....or perhaps, it's all made up and the person concerned has said nothing of the sort?

The e-mail contacts I posted are all public domain, all of those people would welcome contact from members of the public

So you didn't ask them

If you're going to go to the effort to create a blog, at least make the effort to be original instead of gleaning ideas from another forum, and from a poster who you deride.

I think you'd better take this up with Fergus...my only point was that if privacy and consent was an issue for you, then publishing a job lot of personal emails was not, perhaps, the way to go.

Have you actually bothered to read the dozens of peer reviewed papers I and others have made on here?

Yes. And I've also seen the magazine articles, personal columns, pieces from newspapers, bits randomly selected from the internet, etc, etc which are not, nor ever have been, peer reviewed and which have been dredged up all over the environment section of NW.

I have a profoundly held belief that all opinions and views are equally valid; the last time I checked that included me and mine too.

That is where I disagree. Yes, we can all have a different view, but when it comes to disputing climate change, a view or an opinion is not really of much use unless it is supported by hard evidence.

The reason I get angry about this is that all too often the integrity of some very qualified and experienced people is dismissed without a second thought on the back of some piece of nonsense dreamed up by someone with little or no understanding of the complexities involved. There are some extremely clever people working in climate science: they have worked long and hard to get their training, they have proved their worth through their studies and experience. And they DO NOT deserve to be rubbished out of hand by those who do not, and will not, comprehend and understand what their work is telling us.

Like I say, actually go and get the qualifications, go do the experiments, go talk to the people actually involved and then come back and tell me they are as unworthy as you make them out to be.

[Stratos Ferric]

Jethro...have you actually ever MET a scientist....do you actually know anything about science? Or do you just have one massive great chip against all in that community? I would suggest that you contact a university department and ask to go and meet some of the researchers working for them, put all your 'questions' to them and then come back here and tell us all this.......

Researchers don't seem to realize that collecting data that are consistent with their original hypothesis doesn't mean that it is unconditionally true. Alternatively, they buy into the fallacy that absence of evidence for something is always evidence of its absence.

This is utterly ridiculous....as if academia would be that stupid....there are actually huge tomes written about negative evidence, false positives, designing and intepreting methodology, qualitative AND quantitative research, etc, etc, etc.....a very important area of academia is in looking at how and why researchers do things.

I say again, go talk to some academics, then come back here.

Dangerously strident tones, and welcome to the area by the way, I think you're a positive addition to the robustness of our discussion.

I sympathise with the author of the paper jethro cites, however I do agree that anyone with even a modicum of statistical knowhow is taught very early on that correlation does not equate to causation. If that were true then we could neatly associate MacDonalds to the demise of smallpox, since a graph of the prevalence of the two globally would show a pretty clear inverse relationship I think.

Meteorology is, first and foremost, a science of observation, and one which that paper really does not sit well against, and I think it's fair to say that in the technical community the very basic observation that 'things really aren't as they used to be (if you doubt it reader, go see some of the whinging going on today after widespread, and in places prolonged, 'no', in the whingeing thread) is precisely why people are looking for causes.

Oooo, grumpy; fall out the wrong side of the bed this morning?

You're entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine, I don't make personal comments about you or anyone else on here, why do you feel the need to make them about me? The option to ignore something you disagree with is always available, no need for tirades you know.

....

This refrain is one that often gets bandied about on N-W. I do agree, jethro, that Roo's challenge was strident, perhaps - and unusally for her in my experience - even slightly overly so, but I would always defend the right of anyone to challenge on here that that they disagree with. It is, after all, a public forum, and there are always naive newcomers looking for a point of view. Wikipedia, warts and all, relies on the process of challenge in order to develop a correct view; I see N-W in the same. For me it's far less a case of "what right has anyone to challenge?", so much as one of "what right has any of us to mislead anyone else, irrespective of whether that is deliberate or inadvertent"? How are any of us to learn if not via challenge?

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm rather bemused at the snow references. We have 18hrs of 'cold' and every news feed covers it! Now, I risk being viewed as an old fart here, in the 80's we'd be 5 days into a 'cold spell' and then receive headlines of the 'Siberian blast' to come. I've said before for folk to check out the 'cold weather payment' days over the last 20 years and compare it with the years from it's inception......enlightening eh?

This is the 'even larger teapot'. How long does it take a cold source input to be modified into a more normal 'temperate air mass' these days?

Where once we imported cold (when there were cold places not showing + 15c anoms that is!) we now have to rely on 'home grown' H.P. clear skies radiating away our heat.......

Ho hum.

Jethro is wrong but will she ever have the good grace to concede?

[Stratos Ferric]

... The data should be able to be read by anyone, as it is of prime importance in all this, the foundation stone of the AGW theory, then any person, scientist or otherwise, should not be able to tear it to shreds. If the scientist responsible believes it to be possible, then what does that say about the data? Surely it should be "unconditionally true"?

Again, no chip on my shoulder, awareness of some of the disagreements between fellow scientists, yes. Do those requesting such information have chips on their shoulders too?

I sympahise with the view re access, though I recall seeing other versions of the rational for denying it. Where I fundamentaly disagree is the suggestion that the IPCC alone, and their data, is the foundation stone of AGW theory. Tis is almost to suggest that it is a dark science, an unseen plague, an invisible gas, with no effects other than on a mathematical plot.

To your earlier point, we are warming, of that there is no doubt. Anyone can go looking for causes, and the majority view is that CO2 is, to some considerable extent, the likeliest cause.

As to whether it should be unconditionally true, here I disagree stridently. If a pilot of a plane sees a warning light come on, and the duplicate light does not come on (all cockpits having two of everything), does he fly on because the warning might not be unconditionally true? No he doesn't, not if you or I or anyone else is a passenger. Likewise in any life or death situation, or any where the costs of failure outweigh the costs of insurance against the failure.

If it were my train set I would be doing everything possible, based on the strong balance of probabilities, to be doing sonething to stop the anthropogenic effect, because if we don't do so then by the time we are certain it might be too late. Yes, we don't know that for sure, nor do we know for certain that the warming is man-made, but you wouldn't try to strike your last match to light a fire in pouring rain, without cover, against a damp piece of igniting paper: it might work, but it might not, but you sure as hell take care if you think you're in, or may be in, the last chance saloon.

So there are hypotheses to be tested absolutely, and there are some where you don't wait to find out: a bit like when you smell smoke.

---

FOOTNOTE. Disaster theory and gaming theory might make interesting areas of further reading for anyone finding this point stimulating. Many people died needlessly in the WTC because the programme response to a disaster was based on the previous attempt to blow the building up - i.e. stay put if anythign happens. People who started to evacuate the towers' lower floors after the first plane impacted invariably escaped. Many of those who did not escape had chosen, or been instructed, to stay put.

I'm rather bemused at the snow references. We have 18hrs of 'cold' and every news feed covers it! Now, I risk being viewed as an old fart here, in the 80's we'd be 5 days into a 'cold spell' and then receive headlines of the 'Siberian blast' to come. I've said before for folk to check out the 'cold weather payment' days over the last 20 years and compare it with the years from it's inception......enlightening eh?

This is the 'even larger teapot'. How long does it take a cold source input to be modified into a more normal 'temperate air mass' these days?

Where once we imported cold (when there were cold places not showing + 15c anoms that is!) we now have to rely on 'home grown' H.P. clear skies radiating away our heat.......

Ho hum.

Jethro is wrong but will she ever have the good grace to concede?

G-W, fey on you for using such a meteorologically un PC term. even larger teapot my a--e as Jim Royle would say. Have to say the even larger teapot was at it's most modern today though. Not sure what it was like your side of Ogden Moor, but the Halifax side was in something of a snow shadow: for once it didn't only snow in Queensbury today, Stratosshire had a whole cm, and 9 hours on it's still here too! The car even skidded a bit on a side street in Oakworth.

...

I have a profoundly held belief that all opinions and views are equally valid; the last time I checked that included me and mine too.

That is where I disagree. Yes, we can all have a different view, but when it comes to disputing climate change, a view or an opinion is not really of much use unless it is supported by hard evidence.

The reason I get angry about this is that all too often the integrity of some very qualified and experienced people is dismissed without a second thought on the back of some piece of nonsense dreamed up by someone with little or no understanding of the complexities involved. There are some extremely clever people working in climate science: they have worked long and hard to get their training, they have proved their worth through their studies and experience. And they DO NOT deserve to be rubbished out of hand by those who do not, and will not, comprehend and understand what their work is telling us.

Like I say, actually go and get the qualifications, go do the experiments, go talk to the people actually involved and then come back and tell me they are as unworthy as you make them out to be.

I have to agree with all of the above. I don't agree that all views are equally valid. I do agree that all individuals have an equal right to express a view - that is a very different thing. But to suggest that all views are equally valid in an absolute sense is to suggest that there are always many correct answers. Is my view that 2+2 = 5 as valid as yours that it actually equals just 4, say? Is the muggers sense of right in perpetrating a mugging to satisfy a need as valid as the victim's view that (s)he should not be mugged?

[Gray-Wolf]

---

FOOTNOTE. Disaster theory and gaming theory might make interesting areas of further reading for anyone finding this point stimulating. Many people died needlessly in the WTC because the programme response to a disaster was based on the previous attempt to blow the building up - i.e. stay put if anythign happens. People who started to evacuate the towers' lower floors after the first plane impacted invariably escaped. Many of those who did not escape had chosen, or been instructed, to stay put.

G-W, fey on you for using such a meteorologically un PC term. even larger teapot my a--e as Jim Royle would say. Have to say the even larger teapot was at it's most modern today though. Not sure what it was like your side of Ogden Moor, but the Halifax side was in something of a snow shadow: for once it didn't only snow in Queensbury today, Stratosshire had a whole cm, and 9 hours on it's still here too! The car even skidded a bit on a side street in Oakworth.

Maybe it's folks pride or insecurity that leads them to such poor decision making. I'd have been out of the WTC quick smart (but then I was 'Sickie Neave' in another incarnation!!!!)

Not too bad over here. Snowed/grained all day and we got our 1cm........when I moved over in '88 I got snowed in (late Nov) and had 6ft drifts to dig through to get into the phone box up Midgely (where I then lived) to phone in a snow day......last time we had too!!!

[Stratos Ferric]

Maybe it's folks pride or insecurity that leads them to such poor decision making. I'd have been out of the WTC quick smart (but then I was 'Sickie Neave' in another incarnation!!!!)

Not too bad over here. Snowed/grained all day and we got our 1cm........when I moved over in '88 I got snowed in (late Nov) and had 6ft drifts to dig through to get into the phone box up Midgely (where I then lived) to phone in a snow day......last time we had too!!!

I moved here in 99 fully expecting to get snowed in sometime. The closest I've come was when a drift developed across the track through one of the gates. I posted the piccy on here at the time (I think it was Feb 04) of that, and the drfit against the back door (almost 2'). The drift was 18" deep, but only about 3' across, so took a couple of minutes to shovel. The rest of the track was pretty much scoured dry.

The decision making is interesting. I was also underground at KX when the fire broke out in 1987, and remember the harrowing scenes of smoke billowing out of all the exits when I later went past on the bus - the fire brigade had huge arc lights above each one, but they might as well have been shining into granite as that smoke. I reckoned then, before I got home, that some people wouild have died that night precisely because THEY attempted to do the rational think and get to the surface. I read testimonies later from people who had seen the fire at the top of the old wooden escalator, rushed back down, and attempted to stop others trying to go up. In several cases they failed because people just wanted to get home. I got off the underground section on the circle line and walked into the large concourse at track level literally at the moment the big fireball went up - a curtain of acrid smoke shot across the subway up the steps from the concourse. The first thing that occurred to me was 'gosh, there are no fire escapes on the underground', then an alarm went off (reports at the time said there was NO fire alarm - there wasn't down on the tube but on the U/G there was - though staff didn't seem to know what to do), then I thought how interesting it was watching people, literally seeing them think. It's rare in life that a confusion occurs simultaneously, and so purely, to a diverse group of people (there must have been fifty of us got off that train), so that you can gauge the huge range of independent action. I turned around and got back on the train I had just alighted: no more than five or six others did likewise. I'm pretty sure nobody would have attempted to make the surface (I reckoned it for a moment, figuring that I knew where the up steps to the surface were, and that I could feel for the further wall; then I thought my shirt would get dirty - such is reasoning, eh; then I saw the train was still in and reckoned that I could ride to Farringdon and get the bus back for the overground platforms - little did I know).

My point is that when presented with a huge confusion, the apparently rational from outside (and especially after) the event, is actually not necessarily how you would behave. A chuck of Derren Brown's act is based on confusion techniques by the way.