Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - You wouldn't read about it: climate scientists right

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

You wouldn't read about it: climate scientists right
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:57 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

TUM's Telegraph link:

Quote:

However, senior scientists...have hit out at the panel�s use of so-called �grey literature� � evidence from sources that have not been subjected to scientific �scrutiny.

Exactly. BB reject's World Climate Report as a skeptic blog, even though all the material on it is peer reviewed science, yet accepts the IPCC, whose very errors stem from the reliance on non-peer reviewed sources.

I reject it because it carefully mines peer reviewed sources and then selects information without its full context and distorts the original findings. Those who bother to go to the original sources can see it. However, very few people would have the time or the inclination to do so. Don't be so gullible, SS. Start using your wits.

Quote:

Big Bird wrote:

It's a bullshit blog out to disseminate disinformation to the eager and the gullible and is partly funded by Exxon-Mobil.

Resorting to stereotypical leftist tactics when you've lost the debate, I see. Ad hominem, finding excuses to dismiss sources without even reading them.

I've not lost any debate you daft begger. It's quite relevant to point out who helps fund that blog.

Quote:

BB's link alleged:

Quote:

World Climate Report (hereafter WCR) does not provide author information. However, most recent cited articles (for example, at the Cato Institute) give WCR chief editor Patrick Michaels and WCR administrator Paul �Chip� Knappenberger as joint authors

Blatantly untrue. Every single article is referenced.

Don't be so obtuse. It's not talking about the references in the articles (or the supposed lack of them). It's talking about the bleeders who are writing the articles! The actual articles that are appearing on the blog - who's writing them? Please tell me.

It's very likely that since they know that what they are writing is such utter crap, they don't really want to put their names to them. Haha!

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:11 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Ruthbard wrote:

The IPCC has been completely and thoroughly discredited

The IPCC is an absolute laughing stock.

Not among scientists, it hasn't. To those who go along with anything the Daily Mail dishes up for them, perhaps it has. Darwin was a bit of laughing stock in his time, I recall. Still is among some Bible Bashing folk. Doesn't mean he was talking a load of old crap though, does it?

Quote:

BBC today: Stricter checks for climate body ('to prevent damage to its credibility, an independent review concludes')

And, so what? They really do need to do this. The IPCC's credibiltiy was called into question, though mostly quite spuriously, and this had dreadful consequences - i.e. those actually hoping to bring about action had the rug pulled out from under them, to the detriment of the human race in general. The IPCC needs to make sure they are not so vulnerable to these kinds of attacks again.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:19 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

I reject it because it carefully mines peer reviewed sources and then selects information without its full context and distorts the original findings.

That's completely unsubstantiated

Big Bird wrote:

Those who bother to go to the original sources can see it. However, very few people would have the time or the inclination to do so. Don't be so gullible, SS. Start using your wits.

What do the original sources say?

Big Bird wrote:

It's quite relevant to point out who helps fund that blog.

No, it isn't.

P1: Bob denies the IPCC
P2: Bob has a financial interest in denying the IPCC
C: The IPCC is true

The oldest fallacy in the book - ad hominem

Big Bird wrote:

The names of the contributors are given elsewhere on the site. It's an extremely weak allegation to make, in any case, and an intellectually bankrupt tactic in order to ignore unfavorable evidence.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:25 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

And, so what?

Because credibility is very important. Once you' ve been caught using junk nonprofessional sources (in order, ultimately, to get legislation passed, which is really what it's all about), it's difficult to regain that credibility. Why the need to use anecdotal evidence from a dissertation - as opposed to scientific expertise - in the first place, for example?

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:27 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

TUM's Telegraph link:

Quote:

However, senior scientists...have hit out at the panel�s use of so-called �grey literature� � evidence from sources that have not been subjected to scientific �scrutiny.

Furthermore, I agree heartily that the IPCC should have only accepted literature from peer reviewed sources. However, having said that, I should point out that the lion's share of the literature they reviewed had been peer reviewed. Furthermore, their core findings were based on extensive reviews of many peer reviewed studies.

They also published secondary findings/information which was not so carefully reviewed, and it is here that the error concerning Himalayan glaciers was found. I understand that it was a typo - or a reprinting of an earlier typo - the date 2035 was originally given as 2350, and someone stuffed it up. But the stuff about the glaciers was not part of the core findings. It's a side issue that gained far too much attention and to which too much significance was attached.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:32 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

And, so what?

Yes indeed. And that's why I said it is something that the IPCC needs to do.

The very real problem is that people (like you) are ignoring the core findings of the report and allowing yourselves to be distracted by what are, in the scheme of things, minor mistakes. Thus the IPCC needs to try and make itself perfect - though it can never really be perfect - so as not to give ammunition to those at war with it.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:52 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

I reject it because it carefully mines peer reviewed sources and then selects information without its full context and distorts the original findings.

That's completely unsubstantiated

Big Bird wrote:

Those who bother to go to the original sources can see it. However, very few people would have the time or the inclination to do so. Don't be so gullible, SS. Start using your wits.

What do the original sources say?

Why don't YOU go to the original sources? The fact is, if I do it, you'll say you don't believe me because you haven't reviewed them yourselves. So it really is something you must do yourself. Or, go and look at someone who has done it for you, and then go and read the original sources just to make sure they're not bullshitting you.

Quote:

Big Bird wrote:

It's quite relevant to point out who helps fund that blog.

No, it isn't.
P1: Bob denies the IPCC
P2: Bob has a financial interest in denying the IPCC
C: The IPCC is true

A better one would be:

P1: Bob denies the main findings of the IPCC
P2: Bob is being paid to find evidence refuting the findings of the IPCC
C: This makes one wonder whether it may be in Bob's interest to completely ignore all evidence supporting the findings of the IPCC in favour of any that might help refute it. One might also wonder whether Bob might be inclined to use information completely out of context (and rather dishonestly) so as to knock up a spurious argument of the sort that may keep his wallet well padded. Therefore one ought to conclude that Bob's findings should probably be taken with a pinch of salt.

Quote:

The names of the contributors are given elsewhere on the site. It's an extremely weak allegation to make, in any case, and an intellectually bankrupt tactic in order to ignore unfavorable evidence.

Where on the site? There as several people listed are 'editors' but the articles are not attributed to any author or authors as far as I can see.

For example, can you tell me the author of this one: SouthernHemisphere Hurricanes � Not Changing? or of this one: Southwest Drought?

It's not possible to see who has written them. One can only ASSUME that the 'cheif editor' the two 'contributing editors' and the 'administrator' have written them.

But none of these chaps have put their names to the articles - and who can blame them, eh? Wink

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:13 pm Post subject:

Big Bird wrote:

Furthermore, their core findings were based on extensive reviews of many peer reviewed studies.

I don't disagree at all, but the public's belief in climate change has weakened, probably beyond repair, because "[d]rafts of the reports are checked by scientific reviewers before they are subjected to line-by-line approval by the 130 member countries of the IPCC" (TUM/Telegraph). Very rigorous, which means any errors suggest incompetence at best or something more sinister to many people.

But I think we can all rejoice that the kind of legislation the eco-socialist nutters call for will not be implemented at any point.

Big Bird wrote:

They also published secondary findings/information which was not so carefully reviewed

Why stray from professional research at all in the first place, if it is so unequivocal?

Big Bird wrote:

You've lost, BB, and you're making yourself look even more foolish by continuing. Mainstream science has been posted that calls catastrophic climate change into question, and the only way in which you find yourself able to respond is ad hominem and handwaving. Not once have you even tried to show an alternative view - about extreme weather events and their relation, if any, to a warming climate. Until you do that, my position on the climate - that we affect it, but in a way that's unlikely to do us any harm - seems the likeliest to be true.

Big Bird wrote:

P1: Bob denies the main findings of the IPCC
P2: Bob is being paid to find evidence refuting the findings of the IPCC

Not that it makes any difference, but is P2 actually true? Sorry, I don't recall

Big Bird wrote:

C: This makes one wonder whether it may be in Bob's interest to completely ignore all evidence supporting the findings of the IPCC in favour of any that might help refute it. One might also wonder whether Bob might be inclined to use information completely out of context (and rather dishonestly) so as to knock up a spurious argument of the sort that may keep his wallet well padded. Therefore one ought to conclude that Bob's findings should probably be taken with a pinch of salt.

Just lame excuse-making.

A priori the self-interest a party has in a claim being true have no bearing on the truth of the claim

Big Bird wrote:

But none of these chaps have put their names to the articles - and who can blame them, eh?

When the names of the scientists are given on the site (very easy indeed to spot), I still fail to see why this is crucial. I will nevertheless concede that it is always probably best to give one's name at the end of a piece, but I would imagine it's simply a collaborative effort by all. It's certainly not anonymous and it's certainly peer reviewed, mainstream science and, in the absence of any demonstration, there's no reason whatsoever to suppose any wrongdoing has occurred in the articles I've cited in this thread.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:21 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Quote:

The presumed melting of the Himalayan glaciers is a case in point.

This is the main error contained in the 3000 page report. It is not indicative of the scale of other error, which was infact trivial.

This is simply not true. It is only one of many and many of these errors were not just typographical, footnoting errors or minor problems with interpreting ranges. They used lots of data which was not sourced/checked or scientifically tested as this link shows.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html

So the question is BB, were you unaware of such errors or were you simply ignoring them? Doesn't really matter as either disqualify your replies.

I wish you'd get a handle on the quote function TUM. Anyway, these new and fascinating errors are quite piffling.

.

Piffling? Basing claims on global warming and suggestions on how to deal with that on unpublished dissertations by students is piffling?

Basing claims on press releases and reports produced by environmental groups (focus pressure groups) is piffling?

Basing claims on data later shown to be false is piffling?

What does it take to be considered non-piffling? Theft? Murder? Global thermonuclear war?

At best it reveals a pattern of shoddy research/deception and cast doubt on other claims. And these are just the latest errors...hardly an exhaustive list.

I'd like to refer you to what Alan Thorpe said in the same article:

"We have enough research that has been peer-reviewed to provide evidence for climate change, so it is concerning that the IPCC has strayed from that."

Very well old boy, but if "we" do have enough such evidence why did the IPCC feel the need to stray in the first place?

I strongly suspect it was because the evidence did not (in the main) support the more alarmist claims that they were making. Because if it did, they wouldn't have needed to resort to this so-called gray material numerous times.

But that aside I was taking issue with your claims that other errors were simply typographical or footnoting errors and that there was really only one main error.

I also noticed that you didn't post any reply to my link which has the CRU's own computer programmer sweating over the many inaccuracies and un-sourced data in their computers. Data that the IPCC used to source THEIR report.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:45 pm Post subject:

TUM, like any organisation, the IPCC is imperfect. It is quite right that flaws should be pointed out and improved upon. However, the core findings of the IPCC are not in serious dispute, excepting the nuttiest of climate change deniers, or course. I know you are desperately clinging to any error/inconsistancy/problem regarding the IPCC as proof that Climate Change is just a fantasy. Perhaps the grim reality is too scary for you? Not suprisingly. I don't much like to dwell on it either. However, the fact that the IPCC is not impossibly perfect does not change that Global Warming is real. Furthermore, Climate Change is not an invention of the IPCC. The IPCC did not do any of the studies. It is merely a body that has been assigned the task of amassing together the vast research of others, to try and digest it, make sense of it, and publish key findings. Finding flaws with the IPCC doesn't mean that Climate Change can be dismissed. The irony here is that the IPCC is actually quite cautious and recent research shows that climate change is occuring much more rapidly than the IPCC has predicted. Last edited by Big_Bird on Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:19 am; edited 1 time in total

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:11 am Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Big Bird wrote:

Furthermore, their core findings were based on extensive reviews of many peer reviewed studies.

Big Bird wrote:

They also published secondary findings/information which was not so carefully reviewed

Why stray from professional research at all in the first place, if it is so unequivocal?

Big Bird wrote:

P1: Bob denies the main findings of the IPCC
P2: Bob is being paid to find evidence refuting the findings of the IPCC

Not that it makes any difference, but is P2 actually true? Sorry, I don't recall

Big Bird wrote:

Just lame excuse-making.

A priori the self-interest a party has in a claim being true have no bearing on the truth of the claim

Big Bird wrote:

But none of these chaps have put their names to the articles - and who can blame them, eh?

Good heavens, SS. I couldn't finish reading this. It really is pointless to talk to you. You want to believe that mainstream science is proving global warming to be untrue. Because you visit a few little bullshit blogs that peddle utter poppycock and you like what you find there! And now you know better than 97% of climate scientists! Those bullshit blogs have outsmarted those silly scientists - and you are smart enough to have aligned yourself with the snakeoil salesmen who concoct such nonsense. Well good for you! Clever boy! Pat yourself on the back, but do be careful not to spout your nonsense off line. You may feel a bit silly in the years to come.

I weary talking to such as you. It's pointless. You cling to your faith. It's like arguing that there is no hell with a fundamentalist Xtian.

But your point about the public's belief in climate science being beyond repair is thankfully nonsense (outside the Daily Mail readership, of course). Australia has just had an election which saw more Greens elected than ever. There was a huge swing toward the Greens from voters who are concerned that the present government had failed miserably to take action on global warming. And all this despite the good efforts of your friends with their bullshit blogs!

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:25 am Post subject:

It really is pointless to debate climate change here on this forum. It's not a philosophy or an ideology. Climate science is a physical science. Only scientists specialising in climate change have the knowledge and data at hand to nut these things out. The rest of us just have to accept (or not) the growing (and hardening) consensus of scientists in that field. However, one can choose to believe the earth is flat. And one can choose to believe in intelligent design. And one can choose to believe that global warming is just a fantasy. And if you have great faith in these things, no-one will ever be able to change your mind, if that's truly what you want to believe. I'll go with the scientific consensus, and not the fringe nuts and charlatans who peddle contrary twaddle on their (energy-industry funded) blogs. Others will do as they will.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:43 am Post subject:

Big Bird wrote:

You want to believe that mainstream science is proving global warming to be untrue.

What I have argued is not that global warming is untrue, but that "catastrophic climate change" may well be

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:35 am Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Big Bird wrote:

You want to believe that mainstream science is proving global warming to be untrue.

What I have argued is not that global warming is untrue, but that "catastrophic climate change" may well be

Ah, yes. Exxon-Mobil and friends have convinced you that global warming is truly wonderful for bird diversity in China, and jolly good for sunning yourself in Hyde Park. And what about all those winter-related deaths we'll no longer have to suffer (while we contract Malaria instead, no doubt). Global warming is going to be a party! Bring it on then.. the sooner the better!

Scientists believe that civilisation as we know it can only tolerate a 2 degree rise in global warming. Anymore, they think, will have disasterous consequences. Some scientists now worry that it may already be becoming too late to avert a rise of 3.5 degrees by the end of this century. Here's a related article: Why failure of climate summit would herald global catastrophe: 3.5�

And as for those developing nations that you believe should be allowed to develop unfettered by concerns of global warming:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-three-degrees-is-at-least-one-too-many-2066180.html

Quote:

The result (of the failure at Copenhagen) was not the binding agreements that almost all experts believed essential but looser pledges to meet voluntarily undertaken targets. And as we report today, those voluntary cuts, even if executed to the letter, which looks unlikely, are not enough. To slow the rise in warming to within C, the various voluntary targets would collectively need to stack up to an overall cut in global emissions of at least 25 per cent � preferably much more. Instead, analysis of the pledges shows they would cut global emissions by between only 11 and 19 per cent.

The differential is crucial. The consequence of a gap that big is that world emissions of CO2 will continue to increase rapidly, nudging the global rise in average temperatures over this century up from C to well over 3C. One degree more might not sound much, especially to us living in the cool north. But massive regional variations in warming � strongest in parts of the globe that are hot already � mean that significant parts of the world would become totally uninhabitable through desertification, while much land elsewhere would disappear under seawater as a result of the melting of the poles.

All these developing nations (which tend to be in the warmer parts of the globe) that you feel so concerned about may not see out the next century then. Time to get tougher on immigration too!

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:57 am Post subject:

Big Bird wrote:

while we contract Malaria instead, no doubt

Evidence of a link between higher temperatures and Malaria isn't scientifically straightforward:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/06/08/trying-to-hit-a-mosquito-with-a-sledgehammer/

Big Bird wrote:

Global warming is going to be a party! Bring it on then.. the sooner the better!

Inevitably, there will be some benefits brought to someone or something

Ignoring them because they don't suggest catastrophe isn't a very scientific thing to do, now is it?

Big Bird wrote:

Scientists believe that civilisation as we know it can only tolerate a 2 degree rise in global warming

Well, what global warming catastrophist in her right mind wouldn't use a phrase like "civilization as we know it"?

Big Bird's article:

Quote:

The differential is crucial. The consequence of a gap that big is that world emissions of CO2 will continue to increase rapidly, nudging the global rise in average temperatures over this century up from C to well over 3C. One degree more might not sound much, especially to us living in the cool north. But massive regional variations in warming � strongest in parts of the globe that are hot already � mean that significant parts of the world would become totally uninhabitable through desertification, while much land elsewhere would disappear under seawater as a result of the melting of the poles

These are all catastrophist cliches with no scientific proof offered. Actually, the specific sentence about global warming being "strongest in parts of the globe that are hot already" seems to contradict the fact that climate models are predicting the greatest warming in the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (during the winter season)

Your other article consisted of nothing in the way of proof of anything and certainly didn't at all do what I asked you to do earlier: show an actual relationship between cases of extreme weather and warmer temperatures.

You claimed:

Big Bird wrote:

Extreme weather events are increasing, SS.

Big Bird wrote:

It's global warming that is bringing on these extreme weather events.

Well?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 5 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe