Hey Magiver, or any of the warming skeptics. Why do you think you, being untrained and ignorant of the science, have noticed something that the vast majority of working professionals in the field have not?
Do you think that the vast majority of working climate scientists are trying to trick you?
Do you think that people from many different organizations and countries are working together on this conspiracy?
Do you honestly think that something you find obvious, is invisible to PhD level experts in the field? Don’t you think that it’s more likely, that you, an untrained amateur, are wrong?
Do you also think brain surgery, cancer treatments, writing computer code, and structural engineering (assuming you aren’t an expert at those) are something you can understand better than experts?
I want to understand why someone thinks they can come up with a neener-neener that tens of thousands of working scientists can’t.
Hey Lobohan, this is a debate, asking questions is a really bad debating tactic.
There is the reason you shouldn’t ask questions. You are using a common fallacy, which is a terrible method. It’s also of course, an insult. Even worse, you probably don’t realize it.
Too late, you already poisoned the well, even a half baked question now is not going to be answered. Also, it’s another fallacy. I’m sure the rest will be no better.
Whoops, it got worse.
Much much worse.
Oh please. Childish rhetoric does not a debate make.
The real questions, as well as issues get buried in a boatload of rhetoric and personal commentary. As does a lot of the evidence. It’s not unusual for evidence to be “attacked”, sources to be smeared, and researchers and Doctorate level experts to be slandered. But that is usually over the effect of oil in the ocean, mercury from coals stacks, dioxin in drinking water, or some new drug trial. Or a trial of those who approved a new drug.
Not over the weather. Or the weather over time. Which is climate. Fistfights over how much of the weather was caused by somebody else is a rare thing. The blame game, and it is, has reached epic proportions. The “debate” is either “already over”, or “already won”, which is an awful tactic to use while you are actually in a debate.
Lines have been drawn, emotions flare, tempers run hot and even the hapless underpaid Mods of a message board know any topic that even smells like a climate topic is going to need careful watching, and it might generate complaints. It’s ridiculous.
Attempting to debate this is like fighting fog, punching jello or wrestling with a cat. A really big cat that gets angry fast.
Stop describing your reply to **Lobohan **and your last post.
As usual, it is certifiably just rhetoric when no evidence is brought to support what you say, and even on the issue of smear you are not even wrong; you do not know, or ignore, what it is really happening with smears to real scientists:
But this too is kind of…if not cherry picking, kind of misleading. The question as I see it is not whether there is a downward trend but whether there is a cease to the upward trend, or just a “pause”. And it is too early to know.
I am not convinced one way or the other, but I am very leery of arguments like this. There have been many times in history when an entrenched conventional wisdom has settled into a scientific discipline but later turned out to be wrong.
One example is the “blank slate” notion in psychology and social science that Stephen Pinker so effectively demolished in his book of that name. (There are still plenty of sociologists in particular who resist the truth.)
Another example is Barry Marshall, who is now a Nobel laureate but was branded as a crank or “zealot” not so long ago:
Sorry, but that is what they say because there is no getting around the fact that this issue is for the long trend, only relying on the short trend is a recipe for fooling yourself, and it is custom tailored for the very definition of cherry picking. It allows cointrarians to claim that there is a cooling trend but they ignore the past and the context (The last 15 years are still the warmest in the instrumental era and reconstructions for the last 2000 years)
But yours is also an argument from ignorance that ignores the history of the discovery of global warming. For more then 50 years after the discovery of how CO2 captures infrared energy the conventional wisdom was that the effect was well known and supported, but that we humans would not release as much CO2 or that nature was capable of dealing with all those Gigatons released.
It turns out that then the real Galileos of this showed up, people like Calendar and Plass in the 30s-50’s showed that those assumptions were wrong, Plass even showed that the entrenched view that we knew exactly the wavelengths were CO2 absorbed infrared energy was wrong. It turns out that it was not as it was assumed and then other scientists showed that Nature was not absorbing our CO2 at the levels that should be expected so it doesn’t accumulate in the atmosphere.
All that was needed to finally convince virtually all scientific groups and organizations that the entrenched view of not worrying about the increase was wrong.
In essence: Your idea here is flawed in the sense that ignores history, the wrong entrenched view was discredited back in the 50’s and more evidence accumulated later that it was mostly human CO2 the one that was increasing. The tall order for you is to find a good example of a scientific subject that suffered a mayor paradigm shift **after **decades of research and many Galileos. And then it changes once again thanks to the work of non-experts or researchers that have a record of doing flawed or discredited research. This is a taller order because while you assume there is plenty of evidence from the contrarians, the reality is that that is not the case.
If you look back to my first post (#47) I pointed out that the IPCC doesn’t know why their own predictions were off. I quoted from the article cited:
“The new report, Reuters says, offers only “medium confidence” that scientists understand the reasons for this slowing. Causes cited include the possibility that the oceans are taking up more heat, that volcanic eruptions (which tend to produce cooling) may be providing a partial offset to temperature rise, contributing too cooling, or that the climate itself has a lower “sensitivity” to greenhouse gas emissions than previously proposed.”
Insert GIGObuster cites here showing they were right (but are lying about the whole “we don’t know why it slowed” thing) and his graphs showing the same thing. It doesn’t take a PHD to look at a chart and see the temperature fall off despite increases in co2.
So you keep on with your end of the world [del]Global Warming[/del] / [del]Global Climate Change[/del] / To Be Announced rant. I’ll keep on living in the real world where technological advances and market forces are quietly reducing co2 without all the hysteria.
So GIGO, your position is essentially that once a paradigm has shifted, the second paradigm is automatically correct? Or how many shifts does it take? Because with hernias I’m sure that if we go back a ways, there was something to do with bile or humours or whatever.
No, read it again, that is precisely what Richard alley reported, there is less confidence there precisely because we do not know when a huge volcanic eruption will happen, duh. The simple point here is that the “lie” part is just spin, that is not what Reuters is reporting. And once again repeating what you are claiming does not make it so, you are only ignoring that "slowdowns"or “pauses” in the surface temperature record were reported a steady increase of temperature was not predicted as many scientists reported already. It is reckless to expect this “pause” (as usual you only get that by ignoring what is happening in the oceans) to remain there forever or to get as low as it was before all that CO2 was released recently into the atmosphere.
And this can not be finish without noticing that your last paragraph is only repeating a basic contradiction, if you are correct, then it would be foolish to reduce CO2. That is once again one item that makes others not to take one seriously.
Nope, contrarians are demanding to shift again, with no evidence. You will have to notice that so far, there is only FUD posted from Magiver, the evidence that contrarians are correct, that is the other piece of why a paradigm ships takes place is not there.
As many as needed, but the problem of ignoring how much evidence was there for the shifts is that it also ignores that the further we go, with the better tools we have now, the shifts are smaller than you think.
And this the main problem with the contrarian point being made; the accusation is that somehow making it better, getting better tools, assigning slightly lowered confidence on certain items equals hysteria and bad science.
Not untrained, so no answer.
Not quite.
No.
No conspiracy.
No, I don’t
In this case, no.
Not always.
Now to you.
Why do you think you, being untrained and ignorant of the science can speak about and defend something you cannot understand and only repeat other people opinions on the subject?
The real answer to Lobohan’s fallact-infected gotcha questiins is simple:
Scientists are people, in the same way as lawyers, waitresses, and pilots.
They respond to the same pressures: money, jobs, security.
Public opinion and grants and publishing is now depndent on AGW. The editor of a science iagazine resigned over the magazine’s publishing a non AGW article even after embarassingly ass-licking apology letter for, apparently, raping the Scientific Method’s mum.
“Big Bang” is the derisive name given to Lemaitre’s “creationist” view of the Universe. Now, it’s science.
In science, money comes with all sort of strings attached.
Only that even the evidence released from “Climategate” demonstrated the opposite after all the huff and puff that it was a conspiracy.
The important bit from that video is to notice that Peter Hadfield was originally taken by the seemingly fraudulent behavior of the climate scientists and had critisism launched at them.
Just like many (and I got sucked into this subject in big part by this) he thought that the salesmen of FUD were correct about the evil hood of the scientists; but; Hadfield found after investigating that it was the contrarians the ones that were pulling the legs of a few gullible people.
Hadfield then began to take the side of the scientists, not only for the evidence showing that the academics were not doing anything bad with the data or science, but because the emails themselves showed that the scientists are not complacent, just for example Michael Mann reported in one of the leaked emails he actually got to get the help of one of his biggest critics, making the science behind the latest “hockey stick” to be more robust than before.
Because one does not need to be a scientist to be familiar with expert scientific opinion. Argumentum ad verecundiam is not a fallacy but a valid and useful tool, so long as the authority is relevant to the question.
