The ironclad logic of conspiracy theories and how to break it

October 6, 2014 by Peter Ellerton, The Conversation
Conspiracy theories are so hard to debunk because they use science. Credit: Flickr/dexterd, CC BY

As the United Nations warns of the dire consequences of global warming, the commitment of the current Australian government to the reality of climate change remains unclear, with a history of disturbingly uninformed commentary on the issue and a climate policy with a decidedly ad hoc flavour.

Even the prime minister's business adviser, Maurice Newman, suspects the World Meteorological Organisation of and propaganda.

Let's be very clear – to deny the science of climate change is to believe in a conspiracy. It may be thought of as a conspiracy between scientists and "the left", the UN, or all of them, but it is a necessary part of any such position.

Those in public life who deny climate science have long had a free reign in the media, appealing to the right for alternative views to be heard, claiming that this or that study is flawed, or explicitly claiming that a conspiracy exists.

The genius of conspiracy theories is that you can't prove them wrong, and this is true for two reasons.

The foundations of conspiracy theories

The first is that most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear. They are motivated to believe what they do, and unless those motivations change, it is unlikely they will be swayed by rational argument.

After all, in a world in which so much is known, and so little of it by us individually, it's tempting and empowering to think you have inside knowledge of what's really going on.

We know that entire industries are built on giving people excuses not to believe in science, excuses that allow them to maintain their delusions. We also know that believing in one makes you more likely to believe in others.

The second reason is that their logic is self-sealing, designed to be impermeable to external reasoning. Let's take a look at how this works for conspiracies to do with science.

Science vs conspiracy

We may consider two general premises: the first, premise S, represents what the scientific community in general thinks is the case. The second, premise C, is what conspiracy theorists think is true.

Let's initially look at climate change. Premise S, the scientific position, is that the planet is warming and that humans are contributing to this effect.

Premise C, the conspiracy position, is that scientists are motivated to increase their funding (or support a green ideology, or both) by making extreme and unwarranted predictions about the dire consequences of .

The devilish part is that confirming instances of Premise S are also confirming instances of Premise C. Whenever a result is published supporting that the planet is warming and that humans are in part responsible, that result also supports the idea that scientists are once again feathering their collective nests by appealing to fear. Each theory is strengthened, according to its proponents.

Premise S could be falsified if we found showing either that the planet is cooling or that humans are not responsible for increasing temperatures. But that same evidence would be seen by conspiracy theorists as the truth finally emerging from beneath the layers of suppression.

Either way, it's a win for supporters of Premise C.

Any attempt to falsify Premise C is doomed to failure, as each new result that supports Premise S is simply seen as another instance of a conspiracy among scientists.

In the case of evolution, Premise S is that evolution has occurred and natural selection is its mechanism. Premise C, developed by religious fundamentalists, is identical to the example, except that in this case scientists are said to be motivated to perpetuate the myth of evolution in order to promote their ideology and their atheism.

Again, evidence in support of Premise S (evolution) is also evidence in support of Premise C (conspiracy). Likewise, any evidence against Premise S, however weak, is seen as the truth coming out by supporters of Premise C.

How to topple a conspiracy theory

But there is a strategy that may change people's minds (or at least expose faulty thinking) when dealing with conspiracy theories in science; one loose scale in the logical armour that can be worked free.

Rather than look for more instances confirming Premise S, it is more effective to appeal to the rationality of conspiracy theorists – not because they are necessarily rational, but because they believe themselves to be – and ask them to state what would falsify their belief. It would work like this:

  • Step One – Agree on a phrasing of Premise S and Premise C for the issue at hand. The earlier examples show how this can be done.
  • Step Two – Agree that a theory should be able to be falsified for it to be scientific. There should be a sentence that says "if I am wrong, we would expect to see […]". If there is no such sentence, the theory is not scientific (with very few arguable exceptions).
  • Step Three – Ask what evidence would falsify Premise S, which is usually an easy task (even more so since most theorists think the evidence already exists).
  • Step Four – Ask them what would falsify Premise C. It is here they will falter. The conditions of falsification need to be clear and achievable, phrased in the language of the here and now. No shifting of goal posts and no redefining of terms.

And your answer is…?

Consider what evidence a global warming or evolution conspiracist would accept that shows scientists are not involved in a conspiracy. I invite the reader to suggest some. We could easily extend this to the topic of vaccination.

Consider also what evidence would falsify Premise C in terms of aliens visiting Earth, ghosts or any other situations in which there is an absence of any definite evidence.

This process demonstrates that conspiracy theorists are not behaving rationally, in as much as we might think of rationality being in line with scientific methodologies, not only towards others, but also to themselves.

Journalists may find their job more interesting, and audiences might better enjoy the outcome, if they shaped interviews with this process in mind. And politicians and others who hold to conspiracy theories might have to admit, when pressed, that their beliefs are at best unscientific, and at worst deluded.

Explore further: Anti-vaccine conspiracy theories may have 'detrimental consequences' for children's health

Related Stories

Why conspiracy theorists won't give up on MH17 and MH370

August 20, 2014

A huge criminal investigation is underway in the Netherlands, following the downing of flight MH17. Ten Dutch prosecutors and 200 policemen are involved in collecting evidence to present at the International Criminal Court ...

Believing the impossible and conspiracy theories

January 26, 2012

Distrust and paranoia about government has a long history, and the feeling that there is a conspiracy of elites can lead to suspicion for authorities and the claims they make. For some, the attraction of conspiracy theories ...

Right, left, wrong: People reject science because ...

October 3, 2013

You'd be forgiven for thinking science is under attack. Climate science has been challenged by deniers and sceptics, vaccination rates are falling thanks to anti-vaccination movements, and GM crops are pillaged by anti-GM ...

Fiction prepares us for a world changed by global warming

April 23, 2014

Climate fiction, or simply cli-fi, is a newly coined term for novels and films which focus on the consequences of global warming. New research from University of Copenhagen shows how these fictions serve as a mental laboratory ...

Recommended for you

Rare fossil bird deepens mystery of avian extinctions

November 13, 2018

During the late Cretaceous period, more than 65 million years ago, birds belonging to hundreds of different species flitted around the dinosaurs and through the forests as abundantly as they flit about our woods and fields ...

Violent crime rates rise in warmer winters

November 13, 2018

As global temperatures climb, warmer winters in parts of the country may set the scene for higher rates of violent crimes such as assault and robbery, according to a new CIRES study.

121 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Scottish Sceptic
1.6 / 5 (26) Oct 06, 2014
"Let's be very clear – to deny the science of climate change is to believe in a conspiracy."

In a survey done by the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum, it was found that most sceptics had science or engineering degrees and post graduate qualifications. Most had more than 15 years work experience and most were private sector.

And what are global warming advocates? Most are public sector academics who have never worked in the real world nor seen how science works in practice.
LariAnn
1.8 / 5 (21) Oct 06, 2014
Given that an activity can be encouraged by availability of funding (or by no taxes on it) and, conversely, that an activity can be discouraged by a lack of funding (or by taxes on it), then there is another alternative besides "science" and "conspiracy". That alternative is that the relatively small groups of people (relative to the population at large) that determine who gets funding or what gets taxed are, whether advertently or inadvertently, skewing the general focus of the scientific community. This does not require a conspiracy amongst scientists, only a desire to keep themselves gainfully employed. If you want to keep your job, you will not propose research that goes sharply at odds with the prevailing view. I see this in regards to evolution all the time, as nearly every time a paper is written about biology, the authors have to include speculation of how evolution did this or that to make this organism the way it is. Speculation is science fiction, not science.
teslaberry
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 06, 2014
'science' . what is 'science'. 'science' is a human endeavor . to do it on a scale of observing the globe, it is very costly.

things need to be funded. HOW AND WHAT gets a funding priority is deeply dependent on politics. that is not a conspiracy, it is a fact.

positing 'science' versus 'conspiracy' is a false oppositionalism and betrays a deep ignorance of how affairs of man work.

for example the engineering of the atomic bomb required much last minute scientific measurement and investigation that was well beyond the theories of relativity revealed by einstein.

the 'conspiracy' at the heart of why these investigations were funded to the tune of billions of dollars was that the military desired to create a weapon.

science is funded for a reason. most of the time these reasons are a mix of practical politics and the desires of board members to also advance fundamental science.

when i read articles about how global warming is effecting the migration of whales; it's politics
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (24) Oct 06, 2014
The same old hatchet job, "those who accept 'conspiracy theories' are irrational". A basic tenet of all conspiracy theories is that "government" and "science" can't be believed, and Watergate, Bill Clinton, Iran-Contra, fen-phen, "Nayirah", Vioxx, dietary rules, George W. Bush all prove that. The very fact that this is patently ignored by all "scientific" venues who condemn conspiracy theories and act like they're made up out of whole cloth necessarily on a diverting whim proves "science" cannot be trusted. It hasn't been proved that large conspiracies must fall apart, but it was proved that organizations of only crooks who permit only equally crooked individuals in can continue their criminality. And it's a sham to ask what condition will be accepted as disproving a conspiracy theory since, first, so little establishing information about occurrences is allowed out by the New World Order, and the crooks can whip up a fraud they will lie proves the theory wrong.
krundoloss
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 06, 2014
Julianpenrod said it well. Conspiracies are all about someone lying to the public for their own benefit. You cannot dispute their claims because their claims are based on distrust for the source of information they are getting. It is a Known Fact that powerful people will Lie when it benefits them, so therefore there has to be a conspiracy of some type in the world. Just look at 9/11, you would have to be a gullable idiot to believe Everything that was reported.

Control is necessary. Lying is a major part of control. Accept it or be a sheep. The thing is, it does not matter, as long as people don't make a big fuss and they just go on with their lives, you have won. They are controlled.

Now as it comes to Global Warming, IT Does Not Matter whether we are affecting the climate, because we should seek to be in Homeostasis with the world. Everything we produce should attempt to be one with nature. Paper Cups - Good. Styrofoam Cups - Against Nature. Dust to Dust, or so they say.
SteveS
4.3 / 5 (22) Oct 06, 2014
@teslaberry
when i read articles about how global warming is effecting the migration of whales; it's politics

Are you suggesting that governments are conspiring to misinform you about how global warming is effecting the migration of whales?

@julianpenrod
And it's a sham to ask what condition will be accepted as disproving a conspiracy theory since, first, so little establishing information about occurrences is allowed out by the New World Order, and the crooks can whip up a fraud they will lie proves the theory wrong.

Are you saying that the lack of any supporting evidence proves you right?
omatwankr
4.3 / 5 (18) Oct 06, 2014
I see none of the poster have provided a test to disprove their positions, just the usual crap

"powerful people will Lie when it benefits them"
are you saying the fossil fuel industry and its dependents is not in the least bit powerful?
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 06, 2014
A [global warming] priest accusing critics to not behaving rationally. "Here is new superior methodology to prove skeptics wrong [without those pesky references to sea ice and temperature data]". Taxpayer funded theater of absurd?
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (19) Oct 06, 2014
A [global warming] priest accusing critics to not behaving rationally.

No, a lecturer in critical thinking at the University of Queensland.
krundoloss
1.5 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2014
I see this Global Warming argument getting misconstrued often. Then they started calling it "climate change", but it was too late, people just gripe about how its not warmer, so global warming and climate change must be a false alarm.

What we DO Know: The earth has been here a long time, and natural processes come and go. It is the way it should be naturally.

What we DONT Know: The effects on the planet caused by advanced mining, processing and burning of chemicals and fossil fuels on a large scale. Dumping of plastic trash to the point that it is collecting in the ocean. These are not natural processes and the consequences are not predictable.

That is all anyone can say. So if you want to, just keep doing what you want, what saves the most money, and see what happens. It might not be that bad, or we could render the Earth uninhabitable. Its all good.
castro
Oct 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
castro
Oct 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
julianpenrod
1.2 / 5 (14) Oct 06, 2014
Despite SteveS's comment, I did not say lack of evidence makes a conspiracy theory true. I said that establishing an absolutely necessary criterion whose absence makes the conspiracy untrue requires all the facts to be allowed out, and the New World Order keeps a tight control over the things it doesn't want the public to know. So any statement of absolute necessary conditions for conspiracy theory subjects is opposed by the New World Order. A fundamental fact in favor of all conspiracy theories has been proved, though, that "government" and "science" are liars. Incidentally, what fundamental condition has "science" put forward that will lead them to say dark matter does not exist? Yet, note SteveS is awarded a rating of 5 by three individuals.
Maybe a new rank on PhysOrg is needed. Those who got an average of less than 2 include those awarded 1's gratuitously by the thugs who patrol this site, which can favor what they say more than getting only 5's from the thugs.
TegiriNenashi
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 06, 2014
A [global warming] priest accusing critics to not behaving rationally.

No, a lecturer in critical thinking at the University of Queensland.


Come again, "a lecturer in critical thinking" fails to notice chicken little crowd demonizing the oil industry, which allegedly conspires to hide the danger of global warming? "A lecturer in critical thinking" who didn't bother checking the facts (e.g. global warming hiatus, climategate, record Antarctic sea ice), then went straight ahead suggeting how one can substitute real research in the field with some "process [which] demonstrates that conspiracy theorists are not behaving rationally"?
castro
Oct 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
castro
Oct 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SteveS
4.5 / 5 (13) Oct 06, 2014
@julianpenrod

One of the great things about being a member of the New World Order is that I can admit to being one and people will just assume that I'm doing it to ridicule you.
SteveS
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2014
A [global warming] priest accusing critics to not behaving rationally.

No, a lecturer in critical thinking at the University of Queensland.


Come again, "a lecturer in critical thinking" fails to notice chicken little crowd demonizing the oil industry, which allegedly conspires to hide the danger of global warming? "A lecturer in critical thinking" who didn't bother checking the facts (e.g. global warming hiatus, climategate, record Antarctic sea ice), then went straight ahead suggeting how one can substitute real research in the field with some "process [which] demonstrates that conspiracy theorists are not behaving rationally"?


Maybe you should audit his course.
Nik_2213
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2014
Misses the point that folk will *not* use the logical steps described, because that means they'd also have to challenge umpteen other cherished beliefs...
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2014
chicken little crowd demonizing the oil industry
a study is not a chicken little, tegiri
i LOVE how the article talks about
The genius of conspiracy theories is that you can't prove them wrong
The first is that most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science
The second reason is that their logic is self-sealing, designed to be impermeable to external reasoning
Lets look at some exapmles of that
In a survey done by the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum, it was found that most sceptics had science or engineering degrees and post graduate qualifications. Most had more than 15 years work experience and most were private sector.
And what are global warming advocates? Most are public sector academics who have never worked in the real world nor seen how science works in practice
Hey scottie
what about those of us who've graduated with degree's in science?

More to come!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2014
here's another one
If you want to keep your job, you will not propose research that goes sharply at odds with the prevailing view
Lari- are yall TRYING to prove his point for him? did you miss where he said
Premise C, the conspiracy position, is that scientists are motivated to increase their funding (or support a green ideology, or both) by making extreme and unwarranted predictions about the dire consequences of global warming.
Here's another good one
things need to be funded. HOW AND WHAT gets a funding priority is deeply dependent on politics. that is not a conspiracy, it is a fact.
WOW
cheerleaders for anti-science!
but that last one was just copying Lari... so it is not original (of course, Lari was copying the ARTICLE AUTHOR above, so she wasn't either!)

You you people REALLY NOT SEE YOURSELVES in the arguments in the article?
REALLY?

He COULD HAVE used names, you know... but that would have spoiled all OUR fun!

to continue
Captain Stumpy
3.6 / 5 (14) Oct 06, 2014
We haven't got to julian or castro-zephir yet!
The very fact that this is patently ignored by all "scientific" venues who condemn conspiracy theories and act like they're made up out of whole cloth necessarily on a diverting whim proves "science" cannot be trusted.
at least julian is not afraid of saying that he doesn't believe in science... but then he gets sidetracked into irrationality
It is a Known Fact that powerful people will Lie when it benefits them
krund cheerleads julian, and points out that the tens of thousands of scientists around the world who cannot even agree on menu's for a meal, culture or most other things somehow got together for a WORLDWIDE conspiracy!
Why stop there, krund... maybe the ALIENS are putting us up to it!
http://www.drroys...say-yes/
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2014
The ignorance of mainstream physics regarding the cold fusion or scalar wave physics is tolerated well with layman publics
And of course castro-zephir brings in cold fusion and his pet
cosmological origin of global warming is the problem of another category for laymen
We can't live without zephir's knowledge, everyone
In fact... NO scientist EVER considered anything outside our planet adding warmth to the planet... that would be rediculous, right zephir?
why bother to look outside the atmosphere when we have a global conspiracy to run!
Because of our
pluralistic ignorance,
only the failed debunked fringe science can save us

can you guys REALLY not see the posts you are posting? or how it is almost verbatim to his arguments above
of course not
The second reason is that their logic is self-sealing, designed to be impermeable to external reasoning
I would continue, but it is almost pathetic how the posters can't see themselves in the article...
Captain Stumpy
3.6 / 5 (14) Oct 06, 2014
As a proponent of rather unorthodox dark matter theory of global warming I'm not very surprised, that I'm ignored everywhere, but the proponents of another alternative explanations aren't handled way better in this regard
@castro-Zephir
No, zephir
you are ignored and treated poorly because your idea of "proving" your pet philosophies is to talk about
misinterpreted physics
already debunked cold fusion with publications that were retracted (remember posting THAT link to me? that journal said the link was retracted due to POOR SCIENCE and MISREPRESENTATION)
pluralistic ignorance (while displaying examples of it)
waterstriders riding waves of transverse longitudinal fecal matter
all mainstream science is wrong for not listening to you
Physics that has been DEBUNKED and PROVEN FALSE, like awt

and most importantly, because you can never provide peer reviewed studies from reputable journals supporting your conclusions

but I know you still don't see yourself in the article above!
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2014
"A lecturer in critical thinking" who didn't bother checking the facts ...[which] demonstrates that conspiracy theorists are not behaving rationally"?
@Tegiri
by all means, please show us the studies that support your conclusions...
OOPS
there aren't any
Hmm... how can we talk about this rationally?
How about this! When you and I talk, we link ONLY verifiable, rational, peer reviewed information published in a reputable journal that has an impact in climate science...

Now... show me the studies that PROVE that there is no global warming
(You missed your chance to use the scientific method to make some good money already)
So far, your arguments are mirroring what he says Conspiracy theorists do...

How about the preponderance of papers proving global warming? http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

Supported by studies
http://iopscience.../article
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2014
...When you and I talk, we link ONLY verifiable, rational, peer reviewed information published in a reputable journal that has an impact in climate science...


Why are you so fixated on pier reviewed publications? Here is one:
http://www.nature...1a0.html
Nature! 625 citations! It must be right.

At the end of the day, if there is uncertainty, two things may happen. Some folks might theorize, extrapolate the data where is none, adjust their models, etc. Honest practitioners just admit that we need more sensors and deploy some. This is how we have sea ice imaging satellites, microwave radiation satellites, Argo float network, and numerous other projects. So far the trend is simple: the more data we gather, the less compelling the hypothesis of catastrophic global warming becomes. The latest (pier-reviewed) paper by Lewis&Curry estimates climate sensitivity to be puny 1.5 degree. Do you have anything intelligent to say about it?
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2014
Why are you so fixated on pier reviewed publications?
@tagiri
because the only thing you can prove by a blog is that something was printed on-line, however a study allows you to read into the data, the management of the data and the predictions, then results of the study.
your study you linked is paywalled... do you have something that is NOT?
The latest (pier-reviewed) paper...Do you have anything intelligent to say about it?
Yep, but since you are not linking the study, I don't know if certain data was taken into consideration, so I am stuck with your word only
i prefer the link... so please add it here when you can

I think that there might be some wiggle room to account for as well -such as NOAA Climate.gov, based on EPICA Dome C data (Lüthi, D., et al., 2008) provided by NOAA

http://www.climat...l-levels

which has the POTENTIAL to change a 1.5deg C to higher temps
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (17) Oct 07, 2014
Ah, the preachings...er...rants... of the AGW Cult's clergy to it's blind followers...er... gullible Chicken Littles. As one would expect, it must regurgitate the usual insinuations:
- You don't know and is against science
- You are irrational/crazy.
.......
What next? You are possessed by the devil and must be burned.
These are the depths the AGW Cult will sink, when their "science" fails them.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2014
Ah, the preachings...er...rants... of the AGW Cult's clergy to it's blind followers...er... gullible Chicken Littles. As one would expect, it must regurgitate the usual insinuations:
- You don't know and is against science
- You are irrational/crazy.
.......
What next? You are possessed by the devil and must be burned.
These are the depths the AGW Cult will sink, when their "science" fails them.


Anti: apparently this article was written for you.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2014
Converting the philosophy to science, this would read:
- There is a conclusion S (based on, and well tested by, data).
- And an untestable claim C.

S is rational science, C is an insane visitor from the dogmatic Asylum.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (16) Oct 07, 2014
Too many Asylum visitors to respond to. So let me just respond to the first, to show that the article is written for them:

@Scottish Sceptic: First, I note that organized skeptics, without exception, base skepticism in science. Morally you should change your tag, it is false advertising.

Second, that claim is nice and all (not really), but how would you test that, as per the article? Or the original claim, that AGW is "advocature" rather than science? That 97 % of climate scientists, such that isn't "public sector academics who have never worked in the real world nor seen how science works in practice" but real world explorers, agree on AGW is not enough a test for you.

Ergo, you support insane ideas. (O.o)
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2014
Ah, the preachings...er...rants... of the AGW Cult's clergy to it's blind followers...er... gullible Chicken Littles. As one would expect, it must regurgitate the usual insinuations:
- You don't know and is against science
- You are irrational/crazy.
.......
What next? You are possessed by the devil and must be burned.
These are the depths the AGW Cult will sink, when their "science" fails them.
@AntiG
did you even read the article?

if you would read it, you would notice that, much like the conspiracy theorist in the article, you ignore any and all empirical evidence proving that you are wrong (i guess that would destroy your faith and world view, eh?)
What next? You are possessed by the devil and must be burned.
that is for the anti-science crowd of trolls... like
well
you!

THe funniest thing is that you cannot even see yourself in the article above, and yet we can watch the arguments unfold along the same lines (some verbatim)

alfie_null
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
As some sort of irresistible lure for our usual basket of nuts, this article achieved phenomenal success.

Irrational behavior is at odds with achieving science. It's a struggle; we are susceptible to being irrational in so many ways. One of those steep slippery slopes. As a larval crackpot, once you hit the valley, your agile mind will rationalize your state in a way that seems consistent to you. Including why everyone else is wrong.

The very act of pushing beliefs here in this forum is a manifestation of that irrationality. You understand you are viewed as a wacko. We will always view you as wacko and nothing you are able say will ever change that.
Egleton
4.3 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
My position is that anthropogenic global warming is correct- I wish it weren't. So what would I need to see in order to pop the champagne corks?
1 I would like to see an increase in the size of the majority of glaciers
2 I would like to see Big Oil stop salivating over the thawing of the arctic
3 It would help if it could be shown that the sun's energy output was waning
4 An advance of the Laurasian Ice glaciation would be a nail in the coffin of the Climate Catastrophe.
5 I would like to see cities dependent on glacial melting for their summer water relax in the confidence that everything was going to turn out right

What else can you add?
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2014
Maybe a new rank on PhysOrg is needed. Those who got an average of less than 2 include those awarded 1's gratuitously by the thugs who patrol this site, which can favor what they say more than getting only 5's from the thugs.


My friend, if by "thugs", you mean the followers/knowers/doers of science then I'm all for it.
Because as this article and the comments on here show - that is simply the only avenue left. ANY attempt to explain (and I think most would agree I don't make it insultingly personal) is futile.
Read the above again.
It basically states that NOTHING will change the mind of a denier conspiracy theorist.
SO it is the likes of you that drive the consequences to that level.
It's either that or let you you get away with distorting the matter with the general public - yes, by far the majority of the (western) worlds media have a right-wing bias.

Oh, you spotted any *chemtrails* lately?
runrig
4.1 / 5 (15) Oct 07, 2014
At the end of the day, if there is uncertainty, two things may happen. Some folks might theorize, extrapolate the data where is none, adjust their models, etc. Honest practitioners just admit that we need more sensors and deploy some. This is how we have sea ice imaging satellites, microwave radiation satellites, Argo float network, and numerous other projects. So far the trend is simple: the more data we gather, the less compelling the hypothesis of catastrophic global warming becomes. The latest (pier-reviewed) paper by Lewis&Curry estimates climate sensitivity to be puny 1.5 degree. Do you have anything intelligent to say about it?


There is uncertainty in everything, except death and taxes.

A small prportion of it in science is normal, and NOT an excuse to throw it all out.

The Deniers of this world expect 100% agreement and it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, of course, that this can never be achieved (human nature and the fundamental process of science itself) ... hence the denier KNOWS he is right on this basis.
IOW: to a true (psychologically challenged) denier the case for AGW can never be proven. The way the world works always preventing this.
The rest of us realise this, as inherently obvious and our minds are informed as such.
Not so the denier.
He/she are content in their belief.
Much as a fundamental religionist, cosseted and relieved from ever having to considering the complexity and strangeness of life.
No, they fall back to what someone quoted his/her *imaginary friend* said.
Alla be praised.
TegiriNenashi
1.3 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
RC finally broke the silence:
http://www.realcl...s-curry/

Returning back to the conspiracy article, is this thinly veiled attempt to undo the damage done by climategate (which, among other things, revealed conspiracy of climate science)?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
Returning back to the conspiracy article, is this thinly veiled attempt to undo the damage done by climategate (which, among other things, revealed conspiracy of climate science)?


It didn't "reveal" any such thing. QED this article ... it only further reinforced the denier world-view, because everything has to be interpreted as a "conspiracy" by *you*.
You don't get it do you Tegiri?
If you have a mind that is incapable of seeing then any and all evidence is twisted to serve your purpose.

As for conspiracy re the "climategate" emails, pray tell how it works? with regard to the world's climate researchers - How is it organised? or is it telepathic... and they just dont realise? particularly as the discussion in the mails was about the construction of a graph for education and not a peer-reviewed climate paper... and that the "reverse the decline" was the introduction of real (thermometer) data to replace northern tree data that had (for now known reasons) fallen off the correlation curve.
FFS squared my friend.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
There is a conclusion S (based on, and well tested by, data).

Well tested by data, eh.
Oh, the delusions of an AGW Chicken Little.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2014
thinly veiled attempt to undo the damage done by climategate (which, among other things, revealed conspiracy of climate science)?
@tegiriNenashi
WOW
you ask "Do you have anything intelligent to say about it?" and when a study is produced supporting my intelligent reply, your reply is to go back to conspiracy theory?

so then, we can conclude, from your post, that you really are NOT here to discuss science at all, but to undermine science with your personal unsupported conjecture that has no basis in the scientific method and is based, instead, upon your fears and likely the extremist idiots that you consider your peers?

http://arstechnic...nformed/

You really SHOULD have read the above article instead of skipping to the comment section to post your fear based reactions
Well tested by data, eh.
@antiG
their logic is self-sealing, designed to be impermeable to external reasoning

TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2014
you ask "Do you have anything intelligent to say about it?" and when a study is produced supporting my intelligent reply, your reply is to go back to conspiracy theory?
...
http://arstechnic...nformed/


Well, regarding Lewis&Curry paper, which you continue to ignore, I was polite not to LetMeGoogleItForYou. If you qualify your confusion to find the source as "inteligent reply", I'm not sure how to answer.

The problem with ars article is that it tries to paint black and white picture. Most of global warming "deniers" don't have a problem with moderate warming associated with CO2 trapped radiation. They are skeptical of the idea that 1 degree temperature increase would trigger catastrophe painted by believers.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2014
"They are skeptical of the idea that 1 degree temperature increase would trigger catastrophe painted by believers."
----------------------------------------------

You are now taking it to extremes to wriggle out of the facts: Nobody says one degree change is the End of the Earth.

Stop setting up strawmen to argue for you.
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2014
Just out of curiosity, can people of various affiliations post what they believe climate sensitivity is? "1-degree proponent" is better to characterize somebody than just "skeptic". Likewise, "5-degree believer" sounds more informative than just "alarmist". And, finally, some might have a problem quantifying their belief -- e.g. "I think oil industry is evil" -- that answer is perfectly acceptable as well.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2014
Tegirishi, I do not work in the field, although I earned a Master of Science in it in 1982. I worked in many fields, mainly energy. Why would you want such precision in predicting the resultants of interacting complex systems?
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2014
Just out of curiosity, can people of various affiliations post what they believe climate sensitivity is? "1-degree proponent" is better to characterize somebody than just "skeptic". Likewise, "5-degree believer" sounds more informative than just "alarmist". And, finally, some might have a problem quantifying their belief -- e.g. "I think oil industry is evil" -- that answer is perfectly acceptable as well.


2 to 4.5 °C - 5 to 95% confidence interval
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2014
Just out of curiosity, can people of various affiliations post what they believe climate sensitivity is? "1-degree proponent" is better to characterize somebody than just "skeptic". Likewise, "5-degree believer" sounds more informative than just "alarmist". And, finally, some might have a problem quantifying their belief -- e.g. "I think oil industry is evil" -- that answer is perfectly acceptable as well.


Tegiri: Let me try to add a view to your comments. Let's look at the idea of climate sensitivity. The way you come up with that is to look at the balance of short wave radiation from the sun and long wave radiation from the Earth. Those two have to balance over the course of a year for the climate to come into steady state. What we are seeing is that radiation at TOA is going down due to CO2. Consequently, we have an imbalance in the radiation budget. This is measured and modeled. But this does not indicate sensitivity. Continued
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2014
Continued: Instead, it just indicates an imbalance. We have satellites that are trying to help us better understand this imbalance. While there is an imbalance the Earth will continue to heat. One issue is that even though there is an imbalance the models do not do a good job of showing where the extra energy is going. Skeptics point to that and say the while idea of AGW is falsified because the exact balance is not accurate. That is not the case. Instead, more heat seems to be going into the oceans than the models predicted. That does not mean the heat is not going into the Earth, only that it is going to locations that have greater heat capacity and show less temperature change for the same amount of heat.

What that means is that it might take longer to get to 2 degrees than the models presently predict, not that we won't get there. So, what if it is 2125 instead of 2100? That means that we have pumped more energy into the oceans. Continued
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2014
regarding Lewis&Curry paper, which you continue to ignore
I was polite not to LetMeGoogleItForYou
tegiri
you didn't post it above
I can't ignore something that isn't there
If you qualify your confusion to find the source
there was no confusion
I simply replied to your comments with a study that i found
this is where you are failing to take logic, the basic rules of communication and common sense into account: you assume that i am going to do your homework for you, and that ain't gonna happen
I'm not sure how to answer
well, you could start by supplying your reference study (lewis et al) and then specifically show where there is a problem with any other studies
They are skeptical of the idea that 1 degree temperature increase would trigger catastrophe painted by believers
when have i ever said any doom and gloom is inevitable... i only ever claimed that it was possible and probable if we do not correct the problems associated with AGW that we can affect
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (15) Oct 07, 2014
Most of global warming "deniers" don't have a problem with moderate warming associated with CO2 trapped radiation
@tegiri
actually, there are plenty that truly deny the science AND the possibility of warming
They are skeptical of the idea that 1 degree temperature increase would trigger catastrophe painted by believers
this is also a strawman argument (like gkam said)
if you were to read thermodynamics arguments, runrig and more, you would see that there is plenty of actual science proving their point
Now, you have one study that you want to bring up... is it the one from here?
http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

when you have such a large number saying one thing, and a single paper saying different, i tend to get skeptical unless there is such overwhelming evidence in the single paper as to be irrefutable
just fyi
http://iopscience.../article
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2014
Just out of curiosity, can people of various affiliations post what they believe climate sensitivity is?
tegiri
OR
better yet... can someone post a study that talks about it? references it? actually produces some science that shows it?
http://www.scienc...full.pdf
it's not like this is some new idea... as proven here:
http://scholar.go...as_sdtp=
some might have a problem quantifying their belief -- e.g. "I think oil industry is evil"
another strawman
but there is evidence supporting the fact that big oil and big business both have hidden funds in order to undermine the actual science of climate change
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
there is a study linked in that last PO article as well, proving it

in conclusion: there are those who argue science
and those who deny it...

pick a side
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
Continued: What that also means is that it is not the temperature change that is important, rather the time for that temperature change. Again, if the models are not doing a good job of predicting where the heat reports that does not mean that those models are predicting that there will be less heating, rather it is a reflection of how long it will take to get the solar radiation and the IR from the Earth in balance. If the oceans are storing the heat (and that is a developing area of research) then that is the equivalent of adding mass to a mechanical system and the momentum of the system is increasing. So, when it does get to a balance point it will have a lot more energy in the oceans than we are predicting now. If that is in the year 2125 or 2100, it will still be a serious problem.

It also might mean that people are even more reluctant to act to mitigate the situation. If they see things changing less quickly, they might think they can put off action. Continued
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2014
Continued; However, putting off action does not mean the temperature will not increase, it just means that when it gets to a balance there will be more energy stored in the environment than was originally expected. That also means there is more energy stored and that makes it more difficult to mitigate the impact.

So, the Curry paper is interesting because it may or may not be addressing the balance, and instead, it may be addressing the storage and speed. Curry's "stadium wave" hypothesis is interesting because her original paper did not address balance, and, instead addressed storage (which might or might not be transient). Defining transient is also an issues. On geological scales, transient is millennia and not decades. We are storing energy on decadal scales that will affect climate for millennia. If you don't believe that then take a look at how the upper oceans are changing. That will feedback for thousands of years.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
There is no conspiracy, global warming is man made.
http://www.youtub...pciw8suk
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2014


Well, regarding Lewis&Curry paper, which you continue to ignore, I was polite not to LetMeGoogleItForYou. If you qualify your confusion to find the source as "inteligent reply", I'm not sure how to answer.

The problem with ars article is that it tries to paint black and white picture. Most of global warming "deniers" don't have a problem with moderate warming associated with CO2 trapped radiation. They are skeptical of the idea that 1 degree temperature increase would trigger catastrophe painted by believers.

Tegiri:
The trouble is that is just half of the temp rise that we have locked into the climate system. Because of inertia the other degree is a banker. And where are we in limiting CO2 emission... It don't take a genius to figure there is more to come.
Also the "1 deg" rise is an average and the warming in the Arctic is greater, leading to feed-back processes. In other words we have yet to see the real +ve feed-backs kick in. That worries me. Greatly.
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
...Skeptics point to that and say the while idea of AGW is falsified because the exact balance is not accurate. That is not the case. Instead, more heat seems to be going into the oceans than the models predicted...


Skeptics also pointed out that we must entertain the possibility that his "missing" heat never entered the system. How is it possible? Slightly warmer climate -> more evaporation -> more clouds -> greater albedo -> less solar radiation. To me this simple explanation is more plausible than heat hiding in the ocean. Even if some heat went to the ocean, what are the implications? That the ocean is going to release the trapped heat? Or, perhaps, this ocean's heat trapping mechanism would suddenly stop and all the heat will be channeled to atmosphere?

Le's also not go into "the rate of change" debate. When change itself is so minuscule, the rate of change doesn't matter.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2014
Antieverything said:
There is no conspiracy, global warming is man made.
http://www.youtub...pciw8suk


You are as dumb as ever. You quote Muller. Do you not recognize that Muller has completely changed his view since he made the presentation you are quoting?

http://berkeleyea...hats-new

Muller, in fact, verified that the "hockey stick" is correct. Just read the information at his site. The interesting thing is that Muller was a real skeptic in that he had reservations about the heat island effect and the hockey stick. He was funded to disprove both of those issues but the Koch brothers. The result was that when he crunched the numbers he recognized he was wrong and he publicly changed his view on both the heat island effect and the hockey stick. You really need to pay more attention to the people you quote (of course you would rather that people just believed what you shovel out. Try reading some of the recent Berkeley Earth papers by Muller.
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
...This is an article about conspiracy theories and how those that hold them think and behave...


The article implies that skeptics are some ignoramuses utterly incapable in logic which support their believe with conspiracy theories. This is coming straight from armchair philosopher type of fellow who makes a genuine attempt to make his drivel to look sciency:
"We may consider two general premises: the first, premise S, represents what the scientific community in general thinks is the case. The second, premise C, is what conspiracy theorists think is true." So far so good, the author seems to be familiar with Propositional Logic (continued)
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
(continued) So the author goes on suggesting what does it take to falsify S:

"Premise S could be falsified if we found evidence showing either that the planet is cooling or that humans are not responsible for increasing temperatures. But that same evidence would be seen by conspiracy theorists as the truth finally emerging from beneath the layers of suppression."

This boring and utterly uninteresting sciency sounding logical proposition is not is not what the debate is all about. Skeptics don't have to exhibit the evidence that the planet is cooling. They simply entertain the idea that throwing trillions of dollars on not urgent and not alarming problem is foolish.

TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2014

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2014
Hey hold on Ive got a good one.

See, a long time ago rulers lamented the ruinous effects of the human tropical reproductive rate and how it was always causing conflict. They got to talking amongst themselves and realized that this was a universal problem and further, that it made conflict absolutely unavoidable.

So they figured that if war was inevitable then the only sure way of preventing it from destroying everything was to wage it according to Plan. One ruler would send out a group of his most troublesome young hotheads to be ambushed by their 'enemies'. And then the other side would do the same thing. Etc.

Pretty soon these Leaders began to see themselves as a Tribe, a People apart. They intermarried and established first a culture and then an Empire.

Most importantly, They realized that the people are the true enemies of Leaders everywhere. And so They continue to wage Constructive wars for the benefit of all (mostly Them) to this day.

Stop me if youve heard this already.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2014
This boring and utterly uninteresting sciency sounding logical proposition is not what the debate is all about. Skeptics don't have to exhibit the evidence that the planet is cooling. They simply entertain the idea that throwing trillions of dollars on not urgent and not alarming problem is foolish.


If you say that AGW is "not urgent and not (an) alarming problem" then you are denying the problem Tegiri.
You are equating the science with economics and (probably) political leaning.
The science needs to be divorced from that.
Yes, we cannot throw money at it, but we must proceed to the elimination of carbon burning as quickly as possible.
And it is the case that deniers are hindering this process.
The general public are ignorant of the complexities of the climate system and media outlets such as the Daily Express, Mail and telegraph in the UK can sway thousands to the skeptical.

"Lord" Monckton and Christopher Booker prime amongst those that spout ignorant bollocks about AGW science in those outlets.
The Denialosphere is delaying the inevitable, and that delay may be critical.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2014
"it is more effective to appeal to the rationality of conspiracy theorists – not because they are necessarily rational, but because they believe themselves to be – and ask them to state what would falsify their belief."

-Sorry. Historicist theories are not falsifiable.

"Theories of history or politics that allegedly predict future events have a logical form that renders them neither falsifiable nor verifiable. They claim that for every historically significant event, there exists an historical or economic law that determines the way in which events proceeded. Failure to identify the law does not mean that it does not exist, yet an event that satisfies the law does not prove the general case."

-So I say that Empire exists and that the evidence for it is overwhelming.
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2014
Just out of curiosity, can people of various affiliations post what they believe climate sensitivity is? "1-degree proponent" is better to characterize somebody than just "skeptic". Likewise, "5-degree believer" sounds more informative than just "alarmist". And, finally, some might have a problem quantifying their belief -- e.g. "I think oil industry is evil" -- that answer is perfectly acceptable as well.


Well TegiriNenashi, name a figure.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2014
Hi TegiriNenashi, everyone, on all 'sides'. :)
Skeptics don't have to exhibit the evidence that the planet is cooling. They simply entertain the idea that throwing trillions of dollars on not urgent and not alarming problem is foolish.
I don't want to get enmeshed in the usual futile personal-political exchanges which the topics of Political-Mercenary Conspiracies in general and/or Global Climate Change Issues in particular invariably causes, so I will just point out one aspect which both 'sides' may at least agree on. And that is, that, for whatever reasons, if we do spend money and effort to encourage 'green' fuel/energy sustainability and move away from dependence of dirty fossil and dangerous nuclear, there will be the side-benefits of cleaner and safer environment and eventually cheaper energy/goods etc, because of rising costs of fossil/nuclear and the damage they cause via pollution and contamination over vast tracts of land/water/atmosphere, then why not do it for those reasons, and just forget about the climate change reasons?

Either way, whether just for the usual economic, pollution, safety, sustainability reasons OR for the seemingly likely global climate change 'storms/sea level etc etc 'catastrophes' reasons, any reasonable person who is not driven solely by personal-political agendas/ideologies must agree. So why not do what needs to be done anyway, irrespective of which 'reasons' you lean towards?

Anyhow, good luck to us all, as we're all 'in the same boat' no matter which arguments/conspiracies we have on humanity's future in many areas of problems/solutions which we all have to face one way or the other. Bye for now. :)
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2014

Skeptics also pointed out that we must entertain the possibility that his "missing" heat never entered the system. How is it possible? Slightly warmer climate -> more evaporation -> more clouds -> greater albedo -> less solar radiation. To me this simple explanation is more plausible than heat hiding in the ocean. Even if some heat went to the ocean, what are the implications? That the ocean is going to release the trapped heat? Or, perhaps, this ocean's heat trapping mechanism would suddenly stop and all the heat will be channeled to atmosphere?


Tegiri;
But the point is it is just NOT possible. As Thermo, I and Capt especially, keep on saying... there is a basic imbalance in the incoming vs outgoing solar energy. Has to be because of empirical science and also as it is measured at TOA. More is entering than leaving. The climate has to, and will, balance the equation at some point (supposing we halt anthro CO2 emission).
Your "plausible" just isn't, because of the above. It would be measurable.
And, yes the oceans will release the trapped heat, that's basic thermodynamics. It's just energy added to a central heating system that has had it's thermostat temporarily turned down.
TegiriNenashi
1.6 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014

... there is a basic imbalance in the incoming vs outgoing solar energy. ...


I disagree: this is rather a known unknown. There is a dedicated instrument in the pipeline
http://www.report...nce.html
which is going to answer this.
SteveS
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
Just out of curiosity, can people of various affiliations post what they believe climate sensitivity is? "1-degree proponent" is better to characterize somebody than just "skeptic". Likewise, "5-degree believer" sounds more informative than just "alarmist". And, finally, some might have a problem quantifying their belief -- e.g. "I think oil industry is evil" -- that answer is perfectly acceptable as well.


Well TegiriNenashi, name a figure.


I'm waiting
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
1 degree? Evidence:
- Antarctic: 0 degree change since 1960
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
http://arctic.atm...ctic.png
- Arctic: perhaps +2 degrees?
- UAH & RSS +1 degree
- Land Temperature Record -- ignored due to well known problems (UHI, sighting, data gaps, etc)
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2014
Tegiri said:

... there is a basic imbalance in the incoming vs outgoing solar energy. ...


I disagree: this is rather a known unknown. There is a dedicated instrument in the pipeline
http://www.report...nce.html
which is going to answer this.


This is not totally unknown. The CERES satellite did a reasonable job of estimating the imbalance. However, I also agree that there are large error bars that the RAVAN system will greatly reduce. At the present time the estimates put the difference in the fraction of a W/m^2 but have error bars larger than the number. As the article you linked to indicates: "There is substantial evidence that they are not equal, and that difference is known as Earth's radiation imbalance (ERI)."

RAVAN will be a lot better but we are not without reasonable numbers.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
Tegiri said:
- Land Temperature Record -- ignored due to well known problems (UHI, sighting, data gaps, etc)


This speaks directly to the theme of this article. One of the vocal proponents of the UHI, sighting, data gaps, etc... That you list was Muller. He saw that as a serious problem. It is part of the reason he was given serious funding by the Kochs to prove the UHI effect. The work at Berkeley did just the opposite.

http://scitechnol...-104.pdf

Are you going to argue with Muller after he said it was an important effect, then went and tested it and found that the difference when compensating for the UHI effect was indistinguishable from zero.

Berkeley Earth has a great FAQ page that gives you Muller's new perspective after building his own team and crunching the numbers in his way:

http://berkeleyearth.org/faq

Please tell me why you don't believe this guy?
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
Ok, what is climate sensitivity due to BEST analysis? 1.5 degree (at best:-)?
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2014
1 degree? Evidence:
- Antarctic: 0 degree change since 1960
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
- Arctic: perhaps +2 degrees?
- UAH & RSS +1 degree
- Land Temperature Record -- ignored due to well known problems (UHI, sighting, data gaps, etc)


Centigrade, Fahrenheit?
0,1,2 degrees?

Do you even understand what climate sensitivity is?
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
Kelvin. I'm perfectly capable reading wikipedia articles, thank you very much
http://en.wikiped...sitivity
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
I guess Steve abhors at the following simplification:
"Take temperature records, and compare it against CO2 increase by performing rather straightforward calculation. This is rough experimental validation of sensitivity."
No models, radiation balance analysis, and other irrelevant details is required.
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2014
Kelvin. I'm perfectly capable reading wikipedia articles, thank you very much
http://en.wikiped...sitivity


Ok then, what do you think the temperature change in °C associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is? Equilibrium temperature not transient.

I remind you that this was your idea.
TegiriNenashi
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2014
"...transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2..."

"twenty-year period" -- where this number is pulled from? Is it the length of 4 5-year plans? (http://en.wikiped...t_Union) Excuse me, but the TCR is just not well defined.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
"...transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2..."

"twenty-year period" -- where this number is pulled from? Is it the length of 4 5-year plans? (http://en.wikiped...t_Union) Excuse me, but the TCR is just not well defined.


Tegiri: I actually agree with you on this point. This seems to me to be very sensitive to the ocean reaction.
SteveS
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
Just out of curiosity, can people of various affiliations post what they believe climate sensitivity is? "1-degree proponent" is better to characterize somebody than just "skeptic". Likewise, "5-degree believer" sounds more informative than just "alarmist".


I'm interested to know why you are being so evasive, this was your idea. Why are you so averse to providing this information? Come on give me a clear answer, or at least explain why you no longer believe you request was reasonable.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
And were the hell is the moderator?
@pandora4real
I have often wondered that myself, especially considering posters like antiG, realitycheck and cantdrive... maybe rc finally got his hands on one of those mod/troll/gangmembers that he is always ranting about? LOL

The article implies that skeptics are some ignoramuses utterly incapable in logic which support their believe with conspiracy theories
@tegiri
no, it implies that those skeptics that quote anti-science and conspiracy claims are ignoramuses, and i happen to think he made a great argument proving it, too. After all... you are talking about a worldwide phenomenon with multiple cultures who can't agree on a meal or deal with the differences that their cultures have with other nations (overall) and then, suddenly, they all come together for one single purpose to hide real science and publish climate change papers, but ONLY the ones that support AGW? to make money? but how many million/billionaire AGW Prof's are there?
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
This boring and utterly uninteresting sciency sounding logical proposition is not is not what the debate is all about
@tegiri
you are right. that is not what the AGW debate is about. the AGW debate is about stupid people who cannot understand that there is NO debate, and that there is such a preponderance of evidence supporting the conclusion that Global Warming is Anthropogenic that anyone who denies this is obviously either uninformed, stupid or working against science in general

BUT... the article IS about how anti-science conspiracy theorist debaters think and how you can change their mind in a way that leaves them without an argument. Personally, I don't think it is possible because, just like the religious fanatic, they will find some other way to rationalise their belief system in order to continue unchanged, because to change would be to admit fault with themselves or their peers (see arstechnica link above for more info on that)

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
The article implies
@Tegiri
last point here:
regarding Lewis&Curry paper
you never posted a link to support your conclusions, and yet I've provided you with several links to studies and pretty good articles as well (like the arstech one)
I asked you for a link and some evidence for your skepticism
well, you could start by supplying your reference study (lewis et al) and then specifically show where there is a problem with any other studies
this also means that I would like you to point out the problems with the studies that I posted...

this is where the conspiracy theory stuff comes in
Why would any skeptic conclude that out of thousands of papers supporting and providing evidence of something that a single dissenting opinion is grounds to dismiss the entirety of the previous work?

point out specific reasons that the studies promoting AGW are wrong
TegiriNenashi
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
Is there still confusion where the reference is? Come on, even RealClimate decided to comment on Lewis&Curry.
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
Just out of curiosity, can people of various affiliations post what they believe climate sensitivity is?


I'm interested to know why you are being so evasive, this was your idea. Why are you so averse to providing this information? Come on give me a clear answer, or at least explain why you no longer believe you request was reasonable.


I posted my justification for 1 degree. You posted your belief as well (granted it is fuzzy range, not a number). Everybody else ignored it. It should be me complaining, not you.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
Is there still confusion where the reference is? Come on, even RealClimate decided to comment on Lewis&Curry.
confusion?
no
I am asking you to present a link to the specific reference that you wish to include as supporting evidence for your claims
your claims, your burden of proof...

I don't hang out at blog sites or other sites like you do. I don't even purchase non-fiction books anymore, FFS! All I want is for you to give a specific link to a specific reference that you've posted... and i am getting irritated by your run-a-round tactics
why not just answer with the freakin link?
Everybody else ignored it..
then you are not reading the posts above
It should be me complaining, not you
you will, anyway
or you will cling to your misguided personal beliefs regardless of the evidence presented, be it direct refute with a scientific study or links to supporting evidence, which is your Modus Operandi thus far.

FFS!
LariAnn
3.3 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2014
@CaptainStumpy - I believe that 1) either I miscommunicated in my post and you then interpreted it incorrectly, or 2) you missed my real point. My real point was that it is not black vs. white, science vs. conspiracy. It is possible for something to look like a conspiracy when it is not, and it is also possible for something to look like science when it is not. I did not intend to comment on AGW - I go with the science so I am not, as you put, "anti-science". However, I don't assume that just because the prevailing view has a lot of proponents backing it, that means it is flawless or not in need of further research. To me, "I'm not sure" or "I don't know" are scientifcally honest statements to make, as opposed to "supposedly", "presumably", and similar words which should not be appearing in scientific papers. Those words belong on opinion pages, not scientific literature.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
I miscommunicated in my post and you then interpreted it incorrectly
@LariAnn
i think it was 1
because, as you state
"I'm not sure" or "I don't know" are scientifcally honest statements to make
It might have been that I've seen that same argument about peer review beat to death around AGW as well, which lead to my misinterpretation.
and again, when you put
the authors have to include speculation of how evolution did this or that to make this organism the way it is
I thought about the anti-science jvk and others who always state that evolution is not real, etc.

I really did interpret this as your support of anti-evolution and anti-agw

if you are not stating the above, and you are pro-science, I sincerely apologize for my lashing out.
I thought you were driving home the points about conspiracy etc. as I stated above

SteveS
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
I posted my justification for 1 degree. You posted your belief as well (granted it is fuzzy range, not a number).


To avoid fuzziness I'll assume you mean one degree kelvin. Why do you disagree with the equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.64 K from Lewis&Curry? Are they also a part of the

Taxpayer funded theater of absurd?
SteveS
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
I posted my justification for 1 degree.


Ok, what is climate sensitivity due to BEST analysis? 1.5 degree (at best:-)?


Are these people ( http://berkeleyearth.org/team ) also a part of your

Taxpayer funded theater of absurd
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
I'm not sure what are we arguing here. Is 1.5 C as per Lewis&Curry paper higher than notorious 2 C increase that we should avoid at all cost? Does BEST temperature reconstruction imply climate sensitivity higher than 2 C? Again, my personal belief is that climate sensitivity is even lower than in L&C, this is why I pondered what other people beliefs are. I thought it would elevate discussion level from the usual "You are on Koch Brothers payrol", or "Freeman Dyson said..."
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
I'm not sure what are we arguing here.
Well, partly it is that you don't have a bloody clue what you are talking about.
Again, my personal belief is that climate sensitivity is even lower than in L&C, this is why I pondered what other people beliefs are. I thought it would elevate discussion level from the usual "You are on Koch Brothers payrol", or "Freeman Dyson said..."
I quote directly from the article above: "The first is that most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear. They are motivated to believe what they do, and unless those motivations change, it is unlikely they will be swayed by rational argument." Belief is irrelevent. What others believe is irrelevent. You are not affected by rational argument, and you cling to an ideology that YOU think pits you against some nebulous "them". You are EXACTLY the person this article is about.
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
I quote directly from the article above: "The first is that most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear. They are motivated to believe what they do, and unless those motivations change, it is unlikely they will be swayed by rational argument."


So, look at yourself. You based your belief on propaganda movie with cursory science. You continue to ignore increasing volume of data demonstrating that positive feedback loops built into models are grossly exaggerated.

The article above is just an armchair philosophy which is not highly respected by most hard scientists. It is common wisdom that in order to understand the issue -- e.g. is AGW dangerous or problematic at all -- you have to get your hands dirty and check the facts. And I'm telling you one more time that according to the data, global warming is in hiatus.
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
So, look at yourself. You based your belief on propaganda movie with cursory science. You continue to ignore increasing volume of data demonstrating that positive feedback loops built into models are grossly exaggerated.
No, I do not base my knowledge (not belief!) on a "movie". There is no data demostrating anything like what you say, none. Period. Full stop.

The article above is just an armchair philosophy which is not highly respected by most hard scientists. It is common wisdom that in order to understand the issue -- e.g. is AGW dangerous or problematic at all -- you have to get your hands dirty and check the facts. And I'm telling you one more time that according to the data, global warming is in hiatus.
And I am telling you, again, that you do not have a bloody clue what you are talking about.
TegiriNenashi
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
I see. You can't possibly admit that [scientific] methodology leveraged by skeptics and AGW camp is essentially the same. Because, then then you'd have argue on the facts from the field. It is much less work just to label "deniers" as being scientifically illiterate and end the argument with infamous "There is no debate".
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
The first is that most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear.

Absolutely true. So, let's start with "the values other than science".
- There was a movie called, A Convenient Lie, that revealed the depth of deceit the AGW Cult would sink. http://scienceand...ors.html
- There was climate gate, that revealed AGW Cult "science", is the furthest thing from science.
- There is the IPCC falsely accrediting their reports with scientists not involved and non-scientists being counted.
- There is the falsification of data by NOAA.

Now for the fear.
- The cult's False "Profit" Al, burns 24 times the av. US household in power. He flies in private jets all over the world. With the millions he has earned on the CO2 lie, he can afford it of course.
This is the kind of people the AGW Cult holds in high esteem.
- There is production of bio-fuels from food crops that drive up prices and make them unaffordable.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2014
Let's be very clear – to deny the science of climate change is to believe in a conspiracy.
False premise. Presumes "climate change science" is a real thing, and presumes there can be no falsification - ergo, it is not science to begin with.

The genius of conspiracy theories is that you can't prove them wrong,
Funny, isn't that also the very claim just stated above in regards to "climate change science?"

conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear.
As an example, how is, "OMG! The oceans will rise up and swallow us all!" based on science?

The devilish part is that confirming instances of Premise S are also confirming instances of Premise C. Whenever a result is published supporting that the planet is warming and that humans are in part responsible, that result also supports the idea that scientists are once again feathering their collective nests by appealing to fear.
Or maybe the claims being made that the earth is catastrophically warming are simply false?

Premise S could be falsified if we found evidence showing either that the planet is cooling or that humans are not responsible for increasing temperatures. But that same evidence would be seen by conspiracy theorists as the truth finally emerging from beneath the layers of suppression.
So are you suggesting then that climate change "scientists" are therefore avoiding this type of evidence?

Any attempt to falsify Premise C is doomed to failure, as each new result that supports Premise S is simply seen as another instance of a conspiracy among scientists.
So stop talking about local weather and get to the heart of it. Have you thought to check the global temperatures lately? Why did it take so long for climate "scientists" to finally admit we're in a global temperature "pause?"

it is more effective to appeal to the rationality of conspiracy theorists ...and ask them to state what would falsify their belief.
How about warming global temperatures?

Step Two – Agree that a theory should be able to be falsified for it to be scientific.
How many times have the "deniers" expressed our exasperation at the lack of falsifiability of "climate change science?"

There should be a sentence that says "if I am wrong, we would expect to see […]". If there is no such sentence, the theory is not scientific (with very few arguable exceptions).
Ah, the caveat at the end (may I presume?) is specifically applicable to "climate change science?"

Step Three – Ask what evidence would falsify Premise S, which is usually an easy task (even more so since most theorists think the evidence already exists).
Sure, it has been falsified on many levels. But sadly, the AGWites won't accept any plausible falsification scenario. So what would you suggest?

Step Four – Ask them what would falsify Premise C. It is here they will falter. The conditions of falsification need to be clear and achievable, phrased in the language of the here and now. No shifting of goal posts and no redefining of terms.
Ha! This one is easy. To start with, how about consistently increasing global temperatures? ...Temperature increases which are accelerating under the ever increasing pressure of increased atmospheric CO2? You know, simple corollary, aka; cause and effect?

Tec12
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
The cold fusion was also considered a conspirational theory. Now when it's evident it does work at the intensity of few kW per gram it's evident, the physicists ignored these effects for whole century. You must be extraordinarily incompetent to ignore phenomena, which manifest itself with such an intensity.
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
@TegiriNenashi
Is 1.5 C as per Lewis&Curry paper higher than notorious 2 C increase that we should avoid at all cost?


Yes, the Lewis & Curry paper gives a 5-95% confidence interval of 1.05–4.05 K and a median value of 1.64 K

Also the 2°C relates to an actual rise in temperature, whilst the ECS is the increase in temperature due to a doubling of CO2. Even an ECS of 1°C doesn't preclude a rise of 2°C.

Does BEST temperature reconstruction imply climate sensitivity higher than 2 C?


The BEST temperature reconstruction does not address climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. You mentioned a figure of 1.5 °C, I have no idea where you got this from, but it does show a 0.9°C increase in the past 50 years which doesn't preclude an ECS higher than 2°C.
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
@TegiriNenashi
I'm not sure what are we arguing here.


The level of conspiracy ideation in your arguments.

Again, my personal belief is that climate sensitivity is even lower than in L&C


How can you hold that belief without also believing that the authors of all of these papers http://www.ipcc.c...able-9-3 are either conspiring to misinform, or are incompetent. Compare these papers to your justification for 1°C here: -

1 degree? Evidence:
- Antarctic: 0 degree change since 1960
- Arctic: perhaps +2 degrees?
- UAH & RSS +1 degree
- Land Temperature Record -- ignored due to well known problems (UHI, sighting, data gaps, etc)


To maintain your beliefs you ignore the science that contradicts them, whilst embracing anything that appears to support them, such as your earlier support of the Lewis & Curry paper. You ignore all the land temperature records but quote Arctic and Antarctic temperature changes, how are they different?

Btw
UAH & RSS +1 degree
you do realise that is over only 36 years, are you sure?
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
UAH & RSS anomaly is currently +0.3C. Extrapolated to period of time of C02 doubling we would get perhaps 1C. Again, my estimation is crude, but before criticizing it please look back how ridiculously wide state of the art climate sensitivity ranges are.

Why I'm focusing on polar regions and Antarctic, in particular? Because quarter century ago the term "Polar Amplification" was very popular. The poles are the unique places where global warming should be evident. So, what is the story about Arctic, is it in "death spiral"? Here is confirmation of something I suspected for a while:
http://stevengodd...-update/
SteveS
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2014
Again, my estimation is crude, but before criticizing it please look back how ridiculously wide state of the art climate sensitivity ranges are.

So do you know better than the authors of all these papers?
http://www.ipcc.c...able-9-3
Do you think they are all stupid, or liars?
UAH & RSS anomaly is currently +0.3C. Extrapolated to period of time of C02 doubling we would get perhaps 1C.

Your result appears to be independent of the input data, UAH & RSS anomaly of +0.3°C results in an ECS of 1°C, whilst: -
- UAH & RSS +1 degree

also results in an ECS of 1°C

To hold your current beliefs you must believe in a global climate conspiracy.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2014
Do you think they are all stupid, or liars?

They are liars, and they take you for the stupid one.
I dare you to find, in the IPCC reports, a single reference that includes the 1930s.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (14) Oct 11, 2014
antigoracle just cannot make sense with this pre-occupation
They are liars, and they take you for the stupid one.
I dare you to find, in the IPCC reports, a single reference that includes the 1930s.
Ok was it warm in the 1930's in USA ?
Sure, entirely possible the weather was warmer there. Didnt the US have the industrial revolution for a while b4 1930 ?

Why did you claim the world was warmer in 1930's on other threads when it was only the US.

Don't you realise the US is tiny in the scheme of things, its only 2% of the globe and has a massive amount of cold air & ice directly to the north with water moderating temp rises everywhere else.

Why cant you be smarter and consider combinatorial complexity - ffs - even a little ?

Is your intellect so bound in emotional attachment to an idea not supported by evidence ?

Why so much faith in the 1930's as if it has any bearing, why the religion ?

Where is your actual Science about the world ?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2014
Why I'm focusing on polar regions and Antarctic, in particular? Because quarter century ago the term "Polar Amplification" was very popular
@tegiri
this makes as much sense as saying "Why do i think cristy brinkly is hot? she has nice shoes"

you are focusing on one area while ignoring all the rest of the empirical evidence around you

did you ever watch this scientist when she gave her speech about the jet stream instability and how it affects weather due to the warming climate?
https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs
which is a direct result from her study
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

so linking stevengoddard.wordpress is not relevant
CONJECTURE is not the same thing as a SCIENTIFIC STUDY

try posting a study from a reputable peer reviewed source with an impact in climate science that supports your claims
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2014
Why did you claim the world was warmer in 1930's on other threads when it was only the US.

How about all of North America - http://en.wikiped...eat_wave
Europe - http://www.kolumb...ange.htm
Arctic - http://hockeyscht...-in.html

Still want to sing that same 2% song.
TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2014
To be a climate change sceptic is to believe in a global conspiracy.

julianpenrod
"the New World Order keeps a tight control over the things it doesn't want the public to know"

antigoracle
"They are liars, and they take you for the stupid one."

teslaberry
"when i read articles about how global warming is effecting the migration of whales; it's politics"

TegiriNenashi
"Taxpayer funded theatre of absurd"

No arguments will convince them, as each piece of new evidence will only strengthen their belief in a conspiracy, however just because somebodies position is not falsifiable does not make if false, it just means that it's pointless arguing with them. I think that this argument is only going to be settled by the Earth's climate system, let's hope its final point is not too emphatic.
btb101
2.7 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
i remember hackers exposing the emails of the Norwich meteorologists, and THEY were saying CC is rubbish.
So if the scientific community that brought this to the world are saying it is false, why would anyone believe when they say it is real?
Look at the math between manmade pollution and volcanic pollution..
number dont lie, only politicians do.
And when Uk Prime Minister Cameron tells the Un that you need to follow your government or be classified as a nonviolent terrorist, it tells the world just how big the lies really are.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2014
antigoracle shows immense ignorance in mining again with
... North America - http://en.wikiped...eat_wave
Congratulations, you showed (again) you imagine 1 event is an indication of climate, can U be smarter ?

antigoracle
Europe - http://www.kolumb...ange.htm
Surely you can see no provenance, error bars & pray tell what does this mean
"Helsinki: 1934, 2000 / 7.2 degrees
Stockholm: 1934, 2000 / 7.8 degrees"

Is it single figure above mean ?
How were tempss measured in 1934, digital or analog ?
Most importantly where were recordings made, how often & over what period ?

cont
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2014
antigoracle
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/07/nasa-data-shows-arctic-was-warmer-in.html
Didnt you notice the first link re Nasa on that site:-
warming in the Arctic from 1981 to 2001 is eight times larger than the rate of Arctic warming over the last 100 yrs
Another eg that you don't read (first) what u post.

Learn Weather is NOT equal climate !

If & When you learn integration, probability & statistics then you might appreciate isolated measurements with no provenance are not reliable indicators of climate.

In any case, wasn't the northern hemisphere especially north america & europe in the accelerating throws of the industrial revolution for almost 100 years before 1930's ?

So you would expect equilibrium changes beginning across northern hemisphere whilst less changes in southern hemisphere (SH) which was not as well developed re industrial revolution ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2014
hmmm, lets start with something easy...

btb101 muttered without actually checking
Look at the math between manmade pollution and volcanic pollution..
number dont lie, only politicians do.
Which 'math' do you refer to Eg. Data re CO2 as its a known GHG

Here is a site often referred to by AGW deniers, comments please ?

http://www.woodfo...o2/every

There is a bump circa 1990's which we can put down to pinatubo,

But hey, when humans burn approx 230,000 Litres of petrol each & every second pray tell which continuous volcanic event dumps as much CO2 AND heat into the atmosphere ?

Just to be complete, always good to read the site notes, here:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2014
Scottish Sceptic claimed
In a survey done by the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum, it was found that most sceptics had science or engineering degrees and post graduate qualifications. Most had more than 15 years work experience and most were private sector.
Skeptics should avail themselves of provenance - full details of the study please ?

Scottish Sceptic
And what are global warming advocates? Most are public sector academics who have never worked in the real world nor seen how science works in practice.
Well not me, I'm an engineer (>30yrs) dealing with practical issues & in this area especially it is essential to assess the fundamentals re heat, specific heat, statistical mechanics etc.

Answer this question please ?

"How can adding a GHG to atmosphere with known thermal properties NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

& extending for the enthusiastic:-

"What property of CO2 forces it to act opposite in the atmosphere to substantive laboratory experiments ?"
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2014
i remember hackers exposing the emails of the Norwich meteorologists, and THEY were saying CC is rubbish
So if the scientific community that brought this to the world are saying it is false, why would anyone believe when they say it is real?
@btb101
there are creationists that have what they believe is proof that the world is 6k-10k years old as well, will you also join that camp and deny physics?
Zephir believes in aether, which has been empirically and experimentally proven false for over 100 years, lately to an incredibly high degree of accuracy 10^-17 level... that's a lot of accuracy... will you still support aether?

do you see the flaw in your logic?

Ignore the politics and the stupidity of single unproven conjectures from a person, blog, extremist, whatever and stick to the PROVEN SCIENCE, the empirical evidence published in a peer reviewed reputable journal with an impact in climate science
freeiam
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2014
Its a clever thing to divert the discussion to something it's not, like religious people do when discussion religion: they divert it to a discussion about the existence of God.
In this case when we doubt scientific findings and question some models, which is in fact the fundament of science, we must be conspiracy theory believers instead of critics that push scientist to do real measurements (instead of guessing) and scrutinize the available theories and models.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2014
doubt scientific findings and question some models, which is in fact the fundament of science, we must be conspiracy theory believers instead of critics
@freeiam
There is a HUGE difference between being a critic and being a denier
a critic would take the science and find the flaw in the logic as well as in the science and debate that
Given that the publications of papers are numerous, and that the source is open for you to read, and that the information is there for you to refute, then that means that you are not able to refute the logic so much as you are simply ignoring the information for the sake of your personal feelings or beliefs (for whatever reason) and will not accept that the science is legitimate (which is where the conspiracy comes into the equation)
The denier simply doesn't believe and has no basis other than flawed logic
Otherwise, the skeptic would have submitted a paper refuting the findings with the same level of science/evidence that the scientists used
DeliriousNeuron
2.1 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2014
Peer reviewed means nothing. Crackpot mainsreamers are the reviewers.
They have lots to loose just like all the other mainsreamers. So we'll stay stuck discovering new science until the new generation take their jobs.
I can't wait!
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2014
Peer reviewed means nothing
@D
Hey, GROUPIE
why does it mean nothing?
Because, if we assume that the rest of your post defines why you believe peer review means nothing, then you are only introducing the argument of conspiracy based upon a fallacy

The system is a far better system than no controls
or than letting the general public review based upon popularity
What about letting commercial business review? Then you have a mess like what we see with AGW and its problems, with companies actively trying to undermine the science while getting rich (as proven here: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx ) linked in this article: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

So far, your actions demonstrate that you dislike peer review because they ignore pseudoscience like eu

but that is a good thing, not a bad thing
just not good for your eu
SteveS
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
This is a point worth repeating.

To be a climate change sceptic is to believe in a global conspiracy.

freeiam Oct 12, 2014
In this case when we doubt scientific findings and question some models, which is in fact the fundament of science, we must be conspiracy theory believers instead of critics that push scientist to do real measurements (instead of guessing) and scrutinize the available theories and models


Because without laymen on sites like this scientists will just guess?

freeiam Apr 27, 2014
"So we only have to endure 15 years of climate whining. Maybe by that day we have some real data to do some real science with trusted scientist."
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

btb101
"number dont lie, only politicians do. And when Uk Prime Minister Cameron tells the Un that you need to follow your government or be classified as a nonviolent terrorist, it tells the world just how big the lies really are."
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2014
DeliriousNeuron seems to have struck on his namesake squarely with
So we'll stay stuck discovering new science until the new generation take their jobs.
What does this even mean ? sorry english is not your first language :-(

Are you saying:-
a. Stuck discovering new science as in we cant avoid discovering new things ?
Is that bad because we can't use the 'old science' to make useful things like internet, phones ?

b. All new things are somehow bad ?
Eg. Better diagnostic medical techniques or more efficient power sources ?

c. Don't new generations always take jobs when older generation retires ?
What are you getting at.

What's your first language, I know a few, will that be easier for you - give it a try ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2014
freeiam proves he doesnt know what goes on at unis
we must be conspiracy theory believers instead of critics that push scientist to do real measurements (instead of guessing) and scrutinize the available theories and models.
You seem to imagine:-

1. Critical thinking isnt taught at university
&
2. Universities don't have laboratories & fundamentals aren't tested & demonstrated.

You should know, also for DeliriousNeuron that critical thinking is taught & is a skill to being able to interpret experimental data from instrumentation test results.

Eg, The well known & proven thermal properties of Greenhouse gases !

Can either of you two, think or find anything to offer a retort re a fundamental issue of AGW to answer this question:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to atmosphere with known properties of re-radiation NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

If that can be covered substantively then the heart of AGW would be demolished !
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2014
http://phys.org/n...ium.html
Still believe NOAA is not falsifying data.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.