Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 10:00am PT
|
Nah not Ma. But I did take repeated grounders in my early childhoid tree climbing and limb rappelling career. What doesn't kill ya makes you stronger.
Now what about your midget years? What possible excuse could you have for your present level of stupidity, Frosty? Let me guess ; a spoiled rotten only child, to begin with. Father was Duddly Doright, eh?
Enough with the fiction already Chiloe.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 10:04am PT
|
I see Chiloe's alter ego is back.
Made me laugh! sci-fi is a political sock puppet so dim and dishonest that even Rick made him/her at once. But Rick lives in a funhouse of imagined conspiracies, and from that box here's the view:
I think sci-fi is one of you idiots posing as one of us idiots. Anyway, his unstudied approach is an embarassment every bit as bad as Malnuts embrace of markism is to the supposedly scientific discussion of the alarmist side here.
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 10:12am PT
|
Maybe I should have put emphasis on "consider their arguments" not who they are or what you think of them.
I bet you haven't even listened to what they are actually saying, but simply write them off because you don't want to risk having to change your preconceptions?
I challenge you to see this presentation and tell us why the man is wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVsvjRGMQq4&list=UUzp8QlVd_hDLfK1LMLDu3dQ
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 11:25am PT
|
I assume that the silence means that you all agree on the points raised in the two above presentations?
How about this one by MIT Professor Richard Lindzen?
Where is he wrong? (Skip forward to 4 min. where he begins)
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 11:32am PT
|
I'm pretty sure that none of the alarmists here will even take a look at this presentation, but again, please let us know specifically where this guy is wrong and we can discuss this in a scientific manner:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 23, 2014 - 11:52am PT
|
I assume that the silence means that you all agree on the points raised in the two above presentations?
If silence means acceptance of a claim, then we have acceptance that you are a fraud because you have refused to answer any questions directed at you, sci-fi.
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 12:02pm PT
|
k-man, what do you want to know about me?
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 01:19pm PT
|
If I can do the work?
I can certainly measure isotope and trace element abundances in geological materials and understand the evolution of climate over time as interpreted from palaeodata.
I have no expertise in tuning computer models if that is what you are asking.
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 01:57pm PT
|
Bruce Kay, let me remind you that the ability to measure isotope ratios is the only reason that we have quantitative evidence for long term climate change through Earth’s history.
Sorry to disappoint you, but science doesn’t work the way you claim. You don’t need to be able to do every step that leads to a greater understanding in order to be able to discuss it. The reason is that we have something called peer-review, which means that experts go through the work and checks if it is carried out correctly and that the data can be trusted. After they have approved the work for publication, anybody can discuss the results in relation to their work even though they would not be able to obtain those data themselves.
If I was a carpenter I could still discuss the logic behind these issues as long as I accept the underlying data, which has been verified by peer-review.
Here is a nice debate between an alarmist and a sceptic. They do not agree, but are nevertheless able to have a civilized discussion:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 02:34pm PT
|
If you had really seen Lindzen’s talk you would know that he actually says that there is no way around reading the concrete science in order to make up your mind on these matters:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
The whole beauty of science is that it builds on top of the work of previous researchers like a pyramid. As I said, you do not need to be able to reproduce every result by yourself, as long as it is peer-reviewed then experts have already confirmed the results, so you are free to trust them.
The best advice I can give you to make sense of the climate debate is to look at the actual data (and no, computer simulations are not real data).
Observations and measurements = data.
The rest are just models with non-unique solutions.
When someone claims that this is the worst drought in California in 2000 years, then ask them to show you the data so you can see it for yourself.
When someone says that extreme climate events are more frequent now than ever, ask for the data to back it up.
It used to be that being a scientist was to be sceptical and actively try and disprove hypotheses (including your own).
That is certainly not what is seen in climate science, where making up bad excuses is called research as long as it agrees with the IPCC's recommendations.
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 03:31pm PT
|
Of course there are issues that are so complex that a layman couldn’t possibly be asked to interpret them from face values, and would simply have to rely on experts. One such issue would be climate forecasting. It is very difficult to make predictions, especially about the future…
However, the layman can still listen to the discussions between experts and understand their logic and reasoning. This is my main point.
When you listen to such discussions, like the one of Denning vs. Spencer in the above video, you can judge what makes sense and if you think questions have been adequately explained in a reasonable manner or not. You do not need to be an expert and you do not need to be able to measure isotope ratios or make computer simulations to understand arguments, as long as they are founded in observations and proven theory.
One-sided brain-washing where everybody agrees is not the way to advance science. In my personal opinion, this is more or less what is going on in the IPCC-world!
“Main stream” climate science and the associated policies need to be challenged by discussion from both sides. At the moment it mostly resembles a fascist system, where opponents are silenced with a "debate is over".
What are they afraid of?
That their logic will not make sense to the layman in a debate with sceptics?
This is what a real scientist look like:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 03:58pm PT
|
as long as it is peer-reviewed then experts have already confirmed the results, so you are free to trust them.
No, confirming the results is not what peer review does at all. Peer review is an imperfect but arguably necessary first step in the quality control process, but it rarely involves replication. Replication, a much better test, takes lots more effort and may come later. Fairly often a later study finds that a peer-reviewed result is not confirmed, which is one way fields keep progressing.
sci-fi does not actually believe this claim, as evident by his/her rejection of the main weight (in quantity but even more conspicuously in quality) of peer-reviewed studies supporting anthropogenic climate change.
Observations and measurements = data.
The rest are just models with non-unique solutions.
Another claim that could only sound right to non-scientists. Most if not all observations already require a model; in the case of the satellite-based troposphere temperature estimates that are labeled "observations" in the graphic sci-fi pasted above, the models are completely essential, hard to get right, and famously subject to failure (as Spencer himself, who has been burned by this problem, recently noted regarding the competing RSS satellite index).
When someone claims that this is the worst drought in California in 2000 years, then ask them to show you the data so you can see it for yourself.
Who exactly said that? Based on what data?
When someone says that extreme climate events are more frequent now than ever, ask for the data to back it up.
"more frequent now than ever"? I'm gonna guess that no scientist anywhere said that. Either sci-fi made it up as a straw man, or he/she/it is quoting non-scientists to make claims against science.
It used to be that being a scientist was to be sceptical and actively try and disprove hypotheses (including your own).
No "used to be," scientists are very skeptical folks. There are many other real skeptics among contributors to this thread, but people who parrot false claims from denialist blogs aren't among them.
That is certainly not what is seen in climate science, where making up bad excuses is called research as long as it agrees with the IPCC's recommendations.
Not surprisingly, s-f has no clue what IPCC is or does.
|
|
raw
Mountain climber
Malibu
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 05:58pm PT
|
I may have missed it, but I've not seen here a full-throated "Hurrah!" for President Obama's history-making emissions deal with China. Such a negotiator! Really brought the ChiComs to heel! (Never mind that their air is so choking they've got to do something....)
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 07:54pm PT
|
ah chef
you navy guys are so light.
I get flu shots once a week in each arm, both cheeks and both knee caps from this baby, just coz it feelz gud.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 08:57pm PT
|
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/secret_science_house.pdf
As leading U.S. science, engineering, and academic institutions, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014 (H.R. 4012). As the new House Majority Leader we encourage you and your colleagues to take additional time to evaluate the unintended consequences of this bill before considering it on the House floor.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 09:02pm PT
|
Chief of all deniers,
you couldn't be more consistently wrong.
Here is the text, which means a climate scientist can not give advice on the subject in which they are an expert.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1422/text
2 ``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review or
evaluation of their own work;
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!