Politics And AGW/GW

[Solar Cycles]

Sorry pass that one past me again, what all of them or just selected ones that don't agree with you. lets be clear here, climate scientists and paleoclimatologists are working on both AGW and natural cycles, computers have been used to study both future and past climate. You cannot have it both ways either the analysis's of past and future climate by climate models is deeply flawed or it is not, if the models are flawed then neither argument has any validity and all that is being expressed on these pages is opinions not facts and if the models are not deeply flawed then both natural cycles and AGW are at play. I rather think this is what most of the experts in this field believe and have indeed factored in natural variations into their analysis.

personally I find it hard to take seriously somebody who describes professional scientists who have spent years trying to make head or tale of a very complex natural system as misguided and blinkered because their professional view differs from his own amateur one.

I don't take fools easily weather eater, which is why I show contempt for climate science. If you saw a Doctor and you felt something was not right, but your Doctor told you everything was fine. Would you blindly follow your GP's advice, or seek a second opinion?

[Solar Cycles]

I don't take fools easily weather eater, which is why I show contempt for climate science. If you saw a Doctor and you felt something was not right, but your Doctor told you everything was fine. Would you blindly follow your GP's advice, or seek a second opinion?

That's suffer fools! Still sleepy!! :lol:

[Methuselah]

I don't take fools easily

Don't be so hard on yourself, Solar... :lol: :lol:

[Solar Cycles]

Don't be so hard on yourself, Solar... :lol: :lol:

Drat my little secret is out!!! :lol:

[weather eater]

I don't take fools easily weather eater, which is why I show contempt for climate science. If you saw a Doctor and you felt something was not right, but your Doctor told you everything was fine. Would you blindly follow your GP's advice, or seek a second opinion?

And what if successive doctors kept telling you the same thing.

[noggin]

From Noggin and more especially Laserguy, all I see is arguments that work backwards from the premise "AGW is a myth", latch onto anything that agrees with it, and conclude from this cherry-picked "evidence" that AGW is a myth. If that's seen to be good debate, perhaps some read-ups on internet articles on straw man fallacies and circular reasoning/begging the question might be in order.

I have so far resisted the temptation to respond to this, but my sense of justice will not let me ignore it any longer. You are quite wrong to say that I use this method. Frankly, I find the "accusation" insulting to my intelligence and integrity.

Like Laserguy, I had concluded that the discussions were actually going nowhere and that I, too, would just sit back and let the climate "talk for itself" however that might turn out. But when incorrect and insulting personal comments start being bandied around, then I have to say something.

I could say a lot more, especially about how you come across, but I do not stoop to those depths.

I would, though, like to say "thanks" to Tamara for already having explained to you the methods which I employ.

[Methuselah]

Drat my little secret is out!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

We do need some good humour in this thread, I think??

[Solar Cycles]

We do need some good humour in this thread, I think?? :lol: :lol:

I agree Pete, unfortunately some on here are a little to grey. Maybe it's all that CO2!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I never said that Tamara was resorting to circular reasoning. What I was saying was that Tamara was insisting that Laserguy, Noggin etc. were using perfectly well-reasoned arguments, when all Laserguy in particular does is latch onto anything that vaguely supports the "AGW is a myth" viewpoint, support it because it supports that viewpoint, and dismiss any other views with a strong air of arrogance.

What I'm seeing is repeated, deliberate misrepresentation and twisting of my position, and a group of so-called "sceptics" ganging up on me to make out that I am the one in the wrong, despite the fact that I have never, for example, quoted a conspiracy article as providing "proof" one way or the other, or insisted "I am right and everybody else is wrong". I am pointing out the flaws in some people's arguments on here, and of course when people's ways of arguing are attacked, they get defensive and resort to anything to deflect the blame so that they can continue acting as they are- so long as I stop attacking their "right" to be extremely closed minded, arrogant and dismissive. But I have had enough of these climate discussions being hijacked by the excessively closed-minded, who feel they have a right to not only have opinions, but be extremely closed minded and arrogant about them.

Climate models of course have to be adjusted to improve them, regardless of how good or bad they already are.

Many have got the simulation of the past largely right- the question is about how good they are at simulating the future. Of course if we are having "junk in", then "junk out" is indeed likely to follow.

[Methuselah]

I never said that Tamara was resorting to circular reasoning. What I was saying was that Tamara was insisting that Laserguy, Noggin etc. were using perfectly well-reasoned arguments, when all Laserguy in particular does is latch onto anything that vaguely supports the "AGW is a myth" viewpoint, support it because it supports that viewpoint, and dismiss any other views with a strong air of arrogance.

What I'm seeing is repeated, deliberate misrepresentation and twisting of my position, and a group of so-called "sceptics" ganging up on me to make out that I am the one in the wrong, despite the fact that I have never, for example, quoted a conspiracy article as providing "proof" one way or the other, or insisted "I am right and everybody else is wrong". I am pointing out the flaws in some people's arguments on here, and of course when people's ways of arguing are attacked, they get defensive and resort to anything to deflect the blame so that they can continue acting as they are- so long as I stop attacking their "right" to be extremely closed minded, arrogant and dismissive. But I have had enough of these climate discussions being hijacked by the excessively closed-minded, who feel they have a right to not only have opinions, but be extremely closed minded and arrogant about them.

Climate models of course have to be adjusted to improve them, regardless of how good or bad they already are.

Many have got the simulation of the past largely right- the question is about how good they are at simulating the future. Of course if we are having "junk in", then "junk out" is indeed likely to follow.

Thank you for that, TWS...It pretty-much sums up my own thoughts - but with a greater degree of erudition! :lol:

[Devonian]

Thank you for that, TWS...It pretty-much sums up my own thoughts - but with a greater degree of erudition! B)

Indeed.

[noggin]

What I'm seeing is repeated, deliberate misrepresentation and twisting of my position, and a group of so-called "sceptics" ganging up on me to make out that I am the one in the wrong, despite the fact that I have never, for example, quoted a conspiracy article as providing "proof" one way or the other, or insisted "I am right and everybody else is wrong". I am pointing out the flaws in some people's arguments on here, and of course when people's ways of arguing are attacked, they get defensive and resort to anything to deflect the blame so that they can continue acting as they are- so long as I stop attacking their "right" to be extremely closed minded, arrogant and dismissive. But I have had enough of these climate discussions being hijacked by the excessively closed-minded, who feel they have a right to not only have opinions, but be extremely closed minded and arrogant about them.

......and you are including me in this? B)

Where have I deliberately misrepresented and twisted your position?

Where have I ganged up on you?

Where have I quoted a conspiracy article?

Where have I got defensive and resorted to anything to deflect blame so that I can continue acting as I am?

Where have I been closed-minded, arrogant and dismissive?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Some examples:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...p;#entry1510103

which gave an admission of working backwards from a pre-conceived view (natural cycles > AGW) and fitting evidence around it (even suggesting that we 'have' to take up one side or the other) instead of the other way around, and then defending that flawed way of reasoning using the "everyone are entitled to their opinions" get-out clause,

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...p;#entry1510062

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...p;#entry1509612

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...p;#entry1503056

Although it is fair to say that certain other posters have been far worse for this kind of thing.

[Solar Cycles]

......and you are including me in this? B)

Where have I deliberately misrepresented and twisted your position?

Where have I ganged up on you?

Where have I quoted a conspiracy article?

Where have I got defensive and resorted to anything to deflect blame so that I can continue acting as I am?

Where have I been closed-minded, arrogant and dismissive?

Well I've never twited your position

Well I've never qouted a conspiracy theory

Never ganged up on anyone ( I'm a big boy fight my own battles )

Close minded, not me TWS, arrogant sometimes, but only when I feel someone is being condescending!

Maybe we should all live in a world where we all agree! But that would take away our individuality! Mind you, it seems warmist would be quite happy with such a world!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-c...ya.html?page=-1

To try and put things back on track, I have re-copied this link supplied originally by jethro to reintroduce the line of debate which sceptic followers on here would certainly echew. Sorry to appear to steal your contribution Jethro, but it is more pertinent to debate, than links relating to strawmen and relates to my own post of a day or so ago, (supporting Noggin and Laserguy who are amongst members of that school of thought) that became derailed in 'strawmanity' and was meant to also echo many of the strands running through this passage about Mr Ian Pilmer.

Some of things that Mr Pilmer states do in my mind strike the sort of instinctive logical chord that has been vetoed by AGW proponents - as demonstrated of late on these threads.

The 'old fashioned science', such as I described it the other day, relating to the sun being the primary driver of Earths climate in terms of both receiving and distributing solar energy is relegated to secondary importance by anthropromophic scienctists to what Pilmer describes as the 'primitive' limits of climate supercomputers which, as he correctly observes cannot simulate the dynamics of natural forcings and don't take seriously enough the relationship between climate and solar energy. As he says, AGW doesn't acknowledge that natural systems are far more complex than computer models - hence any costing or audit on earths climate needs to try and understand these complexities first, and get a better idea of the weightings of these natural forcings on our climate before attempting to assess the speculative science theory of man made activity. Such modern science that puts the cart before the horse, as I am fond of saying. Prefer that to strawmanity B)

In this way, it is no wonder that human scientific theory that is self contemplative and inward looking in terms of predicting its own assumed impacts, cannot look outward and meet the challenge of understanding and competing with the natural changes that have been demonstrated through climate history. The benefits of taking the time to do a bit of old fashioned scientific research and get to the truth more quickly about what drives the climate IMO far outweigh the overstated speculative theoretic risks about what we might be doing to the climate.

The statement made about the IPCC being related to environmental politics and being opportunistic, unrelated to science, portrays the fundamental distrust that many sceptics have of the research undertaken into climate which is amplified by the fact that there has been recent admission that climate computer models have been wrong and that the case trying to be built by AGW that human activity is causing abnormal climate fluctuation is on weak foundations is borne out by the fact that temperature deviation in the 20th century has not been outside normal boundaries whilst CO2 has continued to soar.

The link touches on how climate catastrophes have been linked to cold temperatures and not warm - hence the value of CO2 responding to warmer temps such as the Medieval period. We know that plants, crops etc thrive on CO2 for eg. The psychological propaganda message that the likes of Gore etc are sending out that 'CO2 is bad' is as harmful and misplaced as trying to suggest that you should eat junk food in your diet instead of oily fish through some misguided idea that fish contain lethal levels of heavy metals. The health risks associated by eating trans fats etc are far greater than what is the small risk of the overstated chemicals that may be found in natural products and that have cardiovascular benefits attached to them anyway which far outweigh those risks.

In the same way we should trust the instinctive idea that mother nature knows best, her natural climate systems are far more complex than AGW scientists give credit for rather than the neurosis surrounding the CO2 and heat relationship idea, which has many flaws as are being illustrated by the assumed feedbacks not following the school of thought theory. It is a big leap of faith to suggest that we (man) has interfered to the extent that we have adjusted earth's thermostat beyond natural control when the starting premise of the science research isn't being realistic in the first place. Perspective needed indeed.

I am grateful for this link - I think I will be actually obtaining a copy of the book itself.

Edited April 16, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[pottyprof]

OK peeps..

I think we've moved away from the original idea of this thread..

This thread is to discuss the politics involved with AGW/GW and not personal positions. Nor is it intended to discuss who said what about whatever at a personal level.

I think there is enough to talk about with current shifts in politics without personal stuff coming into it.

[Thundery wintry showers]

As for the personal comments, I couldn't possibly disagree more strongly with the latest contributions by Solar Cycles and Tamara, but will leave it at that- otherwise the off-topic point scoring will continue (as per Pottyprof's post above).

In the same way we should trust the instinctive idea that mother nature knows best, her natural climate systems are far more complex than AGW scientists give credit for rather than the neurosis surrounding the CO2 and heat relationship idea, which has many flaws as are being illustrated by the assumed feedbacks not following the school of thought theory.

Any reason why we should trust the idea that "mother nature knows best" any more than we should trust the conclusions of the IPCC? We are, of course, secondary to mother nature- but that doesn't mean we can't have an impact!

It is a big leap of faith to suggest that we (man) has interfered to the extent that we have adjusted earth's thermostat beyond natural control when the starting premise of the science research isn't being realistic in the first place. Perspective needed indeed.

The earlier part of your post refers to the basing of strong conclusions on potentially flawed computer outputs as being unrealistic, which isn't an unreasonable point in itself, but it doesn't follow from this that the whole premise of the science research is unrealistic.

As he says, AGW doesn't acknowledge that natural systems are far more complex than computer models - hence any costing or audit on earths climate needs to try and understand these complexities first, and get a better idea of the weightings of these natural forcings on our climate before attempting to assess the speculative science theory of man made activity. Such modern science that puts the cart before the horse, as I am fond of saying. Prefer that to strawmanity

Nope, it doesn't follow that one aspect of climate change has to be considered before we consider the other- how about considering both at once, and drawing best-guess conclusions from what we know of both, which is exactly what most scientists do? After all, the effects of the natural forcings are every bit as speculative as the effects of the anthropogenic forcings- either we understand natural forcings well or we don't, you can't have it both ways! There has, indeed, been too little focus on the natural forcings side, as many papers admit- but it doesn't make the arguments about anthropogenic forcing any less valid, just suggesting perhaps that there is greater uncertainty.

[Methuselah]

Are Mr Pilmer's utterances to be taken seriously or what? What exactly is he on about? And when did good old-fashioned science have all the answers? Let us imagine for an instant a world without models: no Twiggy, no Kate Moss??? B)

Seriously though: 'putting the cart before the horse'? I don't think so...And there are some strawman assumptions in his article too. But what should we expect? It's about politics!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

As for the personal comments, I couldn't possibly disagree more strongly with the latest contributions by Solar Cycles and Tamara, but will leave it at that- otherwise the off-topic point scoring will continue (as per Pottyprof's post above).

Repeat for your benefit, once again - it is (was) not point scoring, it is (was) trying to introduce balance and some fairness where needed. My 'latest' contribution should at least get some credit by trying to put things back on track. But I guess that would be asking too much.

Any reason why we should trust the idea that "mother nature knows best" any more than we should trust the conclusions of the IPCC? We are, of course, secondary to mother nature- but that doesn't mean we can't have an impact!

Er, yes, actually I think we should. I think I hold more value in the earth, the planet and the universe than :lol:

Has anyone suggested we don't have any impact?? Please represent properly what others are saying. The problem is that IMO and many others our impact is way overstated. That is certainly my own position, has been my own position, and will continue to be my position in the absence of anything other than spurious theories about CO2 and heat which are not matching up in terms of feedbacks

The earlier part of your post refers to the basing of strong conclusions on potentially flawed computer outputs as being unrealistic, which isn't an unreasonable point in itself, but it doesn't follow from this that the whole premise of the science research is unrealistic.

It would be more realistic if it started from the beginning and worked forwards rather than from the end (to date) and worked backwards

Nope, it doesn't follow that one aspect of climate change has to be considered before we consider the other- how about considering both at once, and drawing best-guess conclusions from what we know of both, which is exactly what most scientists do? After all, the effects of the natural forcings are every bit as speculative as the effects of the anthropogenic forcings- either we understand natural forcings well or we don't, you can't have it both ways! There has, indeed, been too little focus on the natural forcings side, as many papers admit- but it doesn't make the arguments about anthropogenic forcing any less valid, just suggesting perhaps that there is greater uncertainty.

As stated just above - approaching research in a logical order is more likely to yield amore accurate results. The atmosphere is dynamic and the order of interactions within it is crucial in terms of the end effects. Therefore research needs to respect this in terms of its approach and be realistic about the limitations of computer technology as suggested in above post

Edited April 16, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Are Mr Pilmer's utterances to be taken seriously or what? What exactly is he on about? And when did good old-fashioned science have all the answers? Let us imagine for an instant a world without models: no Twiggy, no Kate Moss??? :lol: :lol:

Seriously though: 'putting the cart before the horse'? I don't think so...And there are some strawman assumptions in his article too. But what should we expect? It's about politics!

I've copied this part of my post from the general thread because it answers the more pertinent sensible part of your post.

Politics, of which AGW is unfortunately strongly linked to, is badly hamstrung by short terminism in terms of seeking reasons and answers to life's complexities. Lessons are seldom learnt in politics either - and the same mistakes tend to be repeated over again. Therefore AGW as a tool to climate research is potentially harmful in terms of taking us away from the truth rather than drawing us to it. In that sense, using 30 yr periods to make conclusions about climate is an unfortunate symptom of that short termism and in trying to fit a snap answer to a 'moment in time'. Al Gore is a classic example as a flag bearer of that short term opportunism

Therefore for that reason, I think that Mr Pilmers points go way beyond politics -and form part of an appeal to learn from those mistakes and address the initial complexities of natural climate variation rather than pre-suppose man made one's as artificial answers to those complexities.

Edited April 16, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Thundery wintry showers]

Re North Sea Snow Convection:

Repeat for your benefit, once again - it is (was) not point scoring, it is (was) trying to introduce balance and some fairness where needed. My 'latest' contribution should at least get some credit by trying to put things back on track. But I guess that would be asking too much.

The recent posts by Laserguy and Solar Cycles were very arrogant and narrow-minded to say the very least, so I can't agree with the notion that they were putting forward well-reasoned arguments... And to show that I'm not fixed on my five points, Captain Bobski put in some well-reasoned rebuttals on the other thread and I conceded that he raised many good points.

Er, yes, actually I think we should. I think I hold more value in the earth, the planet and the universe than :lol:

Has anyone suggested we don't have any impact?? Please represent properly what others are saying. The problem is that IMO and many others our impact is way overstated. That is certainly my own position, has been my own position, and will continue to be my position in the absence of anything other than spurious theories about CO2 and heat which are not matching up in terms of feedbacks

Since when have I dismissed that view? I have often stated a view that our impact might be way overstated (where I differ is I think "might be", rather than "is"), and therefore, the "our impact is way overstated" does, as far as I'm concerned, fall into the range of realistic possible scenarios. And yes, some posts (though not any of your posts) have implied that humans have no impact- stuff about "the wheels falling off the AGW bandwagon" and "the whole AGW nonsense is a hoax" for example.

It would be more realistic if it started from the beginning and worked forwards rather than from the end (to date) and worked backwards

That would be a very difficult approach simply because we have more understanding of today's climate than that of the past. Certainly, there's an argument that some of the conclusions that are being reached about the future are too strong in view of the uncertainties over past climates and the like, but if we wait for conclusive proof of anything we'll be waiting forever... And there is research going on all the time, so it's not as if everything is deemed as settled (though some scientists & politicians seem keen to make out that it is- which IMHO is wrong)

As stated just above - approaching research in a logical order is more likely to yield amore accurate results. The atmosphere is dynamic and the order of interactions within it is crucial in terms of the end effects. Therefore research needs to respect this in terms of its approach and be realistic about the limitations of computer technology as suggested in above post

...which is correct, but dependent on what is meant by "logical order". I don't see it as being particularly logical to ignore the anthropogenic component until we fully understand the natural cycles component- again, if we adopt that approach we'll never get around to looking at the anthropogenic component! Where you do have a good point is re. acknowledging the limitations of computer technology which is arguably poorly catered for by the IPCC.

[laserguy]

Let us imagine for an instant a world without models: no Twiggy, no Kate Moss??? :lol: :lol:

Twiggy's knocking on a bit now,even for me. And K.Moss has never been my type at all. Just because one climate model makes sense to some doesn't mean it does to all . Sorry - trying to lighten up a little after yesteday's tension. Oh and thanks Tamara for your 'support',it's good to know someone can see where I'm coming from without assuming the worst. Or something like that! No spare time today so at least I can't upset the more sensitive souls reading. TWS,my 'arrogance' pales to nothing when compared with those who know how to control future climate by tinkering around with a trace gas despite there being at least as many and quite likely considerably more who are as equally if not far better qualified to disagree and ... no,I'm not going to get started again!

[Solar Cycles]

Re North Sea Snow Convection:

The recent posts by Laserguy and Solar Cycles were very arrogant and narrow-minded to say the very least, so I can't agree with the notion that they were putting forward well-reasoned arguments... And to show that I'm not fixed on my five points, Captain Bobski put in some well-reasoned rebuttals on the other thread and I conceded that he raised many good points.

Since when have I dismissed that view? I have often stated a view that our impact might be way overstated (where I differ is I think "might be", rather than "is"), and therefore, the "our impact is way overstated" does, as far as I'm concerned, fall into the range of realistic possible scenarios. And yes, some posts (though not any of your posts) have implied that humans have no impact- stuff about "the wheels falling off the AGW bandwagon" and "the whole AGW nonsense is a hoax" for example.

That would be a very difficult approach simply because we have more understanding of today's climate than that of the past. Certainly, there's an argument that some of the conclusions that are being reached about the future are too strong in view of the uncertainties over past climates and the like, but if we wait for conclusive proof of anything we'll be waiting forever... And there is research going on all the time, so it's not as if everything is deemed as settled (though some scientists & politicians seem keen to make out that it is- which IMHO is wrong)

...which is correct, but dependent on what is meant by "logical order". I don't see it as being particularly logical to ignore the anthropogenic component until we fully understand the natural cycles component- again, if we adopt that approach we'll never get around to looking at the anthropogenic component! Where you do have a good point is re. acknowledging the limitations of computer technology which is arguably poorly catered for by the IPCC.

So much for the olive branch I sent you ( e-mail ), now I can live with the arrogant comment, but take exception to narrow minded. That my friend is a typical response from a warmist, I didn't just stumble into what I believe in, I spent hours looking at both sides of the argument, and have found nothing which say's to me that excess CO2, is the main cause of past warming. I don't believe in the opinion, that a scientist say's so, so it must be true! I trust only my own eyes and instinct, which seems to be lacking in the world of AGW drones! Not one warmist can show me any proof, that we have warmed through excess CO2 alone. Pretty little graphs, nice one liners, and a condescending attitude won't change my mind. RANT OVER!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

1.No evidence of excess CO2 contributing to the past warming. I've posted futher back in another thread about this!

2. Stop it please, I'm rolling around the floor laughing at that one! Climate models are about as accurate as GFS is at +384!!

3.Yes man has raped the planets resources, but to assume that man has done done A and is then responsible for B ( AGW ), is stretching it!

4. See above!

5. Time is ticking, P45's are in the post, time for climate scientist to look for a proper job. One that doesn't blindly follow a theory. I hear the banking industry is on the lookout for aspiring staticians!

Compared to point 5 above I don't think any of my original 5 points were particularly condenscending.

As for the rant, I actually agree with most of what you say. But those points are debunking the views of the AGW extremists- so, for instance, it would be a straw man fallacy to then argue that those same points refute AGW. There is no proof that we have warmed through CO2 alone- true, because we almost certainly haven't, and most mainstream scientists would be happy to acknowledge that (though many may be reluctant to acknowledge the full extent of the uncertainty). I don't subscribe to the view "it's true because scientists say so" either.

[pottyprof]

So much for the olive branch I sent you ( e-mail ), now I can live with the arrogant comment, but take exception to narrow minded. That my friend is a typical response from a warmist, I didn't just stumble into what I believe in, I spent hours looking at both sides of the argument, and have found nothing which say's to me that excess CO2, is the main cause of past warming. I don't believe in the opinion, that a scientist say's so, so it must be true! I trust only my own eyes and instinct, which seems to be lacking in the world of AGW drones! Not one warmist can show me any proof, that we have warmed through excess CO2 alone. Pretty little graphs, nice one liners, and a condescending attitude won't change my mind. RANT OVER!!

I see someone would like one of my free holidays.... Last chance saloon time..