Maybe, but you've got nothing. I know how much research you've done (very little), I don't think you've even read the IPCC report.
You aren't arguing against my theory, but against science. I guess your "feelings" weren't giving you an accurate reading on that one. You could always try reading chicken entrails on the matter.
Until you get knowledge, you're not worth talking to.
And we're back to fallacy again.
I take it you haven't actually quantified the actual effects of secondary feedbacks and thus your boasting re: knowing more about climate than climatologists is a bit empty.
Talk to you again in three years when my point is even more obvious.
Well, thanks, but if I wanted non-scientific predictions on the future I would have gone to palm reader. Seriously, your argument is laughable.
It's not my estimate, sorry you misunderstood. I 'estimate' it based on established science.
You literally took half a sentence from that article to base your theory on, and ignored the other half.
In short you think that feedbacks have precisely zero effect on the climate. That is, may I say, a radical theory, and one which is contradicted by both papers you have so far referenced
Not zero, merely minimal effect.
Quantify this "minimal effect". Show us the observational data from the climate record which justifies a "minimal effect".
If you look at the bad science going on in the climate science world, it's not surprising. How many scientists are looking for positive feedbacks? How much effort is put into looking for negative feedbacks? How much effort is put into discrediting the scientists who propose negative feedbacks?
So climate science is a vast conspiracy?
And the moon is made of cheese as well - if we search our feelings, we know it to be true.
But, setting aside for the moment descriptions of the fairy land in which you live, if you've quantified the effect of secondary feedbacks, then show us the observations and model that quantifies it that we may peer review this material. We aren't interested in how you feel about the likelihood of positive feedbacks.
Do you find it reasonable that feedbacks would end up being multiple times larger than the initial forcing? Even that idea is questionable, and ought to require strong evidence.
Your idea is questionable and in need of strong evidence. Supposing there IS uncertainty feedbacks don't suddenly become zero. All that happens is we become uncertain - in that circumstance we can say nothing about the likely impacts of secondary feedbacks. If the models and analysis of the climate record is wrong, then all bets are off - they could easily be underestimating the effect. You have said and provided nothing (except descriptions of your feelings) to justify the notion of increased certainty that feedbacks are quantifiable as at or near zero (in contrast to what actual observation tells us).
What is the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 in C/(W/m2)?.
Look for example on page 38 here [pik-potsdam.de]. This is easily found information.
?? Don't know why you describe your estimate of climate sensitivity to be easily found information you might want to consider that you aren't as widely published as you might have thought. In any case, your cite is very revealing: previously you said that a doubling of CO2 (presumably from baseline 270 ppm) would result in the a rise of 1 degree C. But this paper says that a rise of 1 degree C is what we can expect from simple forcing discounting any secondary effects from feedback. See this:
Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2 ) would result in 1C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed
In short you think that feedbacks have precisely zero effect on the climate. That is, may I say, a radical theory, and one which is contradicted by both papers you have so far referenced. I'm looking forward to you detailed explanation of how your theory matches the climate record (which is, as I'm sure you know, widely thought to contradict your central dictum).
And of course to avoid me referencing your potential alarmist guesstimate method, you meant to say that you have a model which you are using for this prediction, and hence "so far the evidence supports my hypothesis". So where is this model? Provide a cite to a journal in which your model is published.
Please cite your own model at your earliest convenience (oh great sensei).
No, my hypothesis is that doubling CO2 will cause just under a ~1 degree increase in global temperature
I'm sure you realise (o great sensei) that you need to state your sensitivity in the correct units: What is the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 in C/(W/m2)?.
And justify your estimate with reference to the paleoclimate (i'm sure I don't need to school you, sensei, on how science works).
and that most of the techniques used by the models to push that estimate higher are crap. So far the evidence supports my hypothesis.
And of course to avoid me referencing your potential alarmist guesstimate method, you meant to say that you have a model which you are using for this prediction, and hence "so far the evidence supports my hypothesis". So where is this model? Provide a cite to a journal in which your model is published.
And my point is, that "anthropogenic climate change is not real" IS the poorly supported hypothesis, respected by some if it were fact. If this hypothesis were supported by data, then someone would have posted that data. This you accept - because when asked, you couldn't produce the data, which logically means you accept there is none. People who assert such things but can't back them up, yet continue to insist they are true are rightly labelled deniers, because they are in denial.
It's entertaining to me how bad you are at reading comprehension. Go find someone who said "anthropogenic climate change is not real" because I never said that.
Never said you did. Maybe YOU need to learn to read, or at least keep a basic grasp of the discussion.
On balance then, if you think that the models don't accurately reflect the current trend then the trend is just as likely to be worse as it is to be better i.e. the models are as likely to be underestimating the climate shift as they are to be overestimating.
No, they are overestimating, which you would know if you'd actually read the paper! Ha! You failed to read again! Or even look at the pretty graph.
Once again, YOU need to read the paper. Without touching too much on whether their analysis is flawed or not, they do say that the trend predicted by the models does not match the observed temperature trend over and arbitrarily selected period. They also say:
However, this is difficult to assess as the observed and simulated variations in global temperature that are associated with the AMO seem to be dominated by a large and concurrent signal of presumed anthropogenic origin (Supplementary Fig.S1). - global warming is happening and impacting stochastic processes over periods shorter than the useful granularity of the model prediction. And they also say Ultimately the causes of this inconsistency will only be understood after careful comparison of simulated internal climate variability and climate model forcings with observations from the past two decades, and by waiting to see how global temperature responds over the coming decades. or, to put it in laymans terms - the significance of a lack of correlation between trend and prediction is not understood by the authors, so we'll wait and see.
And nothing they have said implies anything about the accuracy of the model suite over time range they are designed to be accurate over, and there is no indication they intended to imply anything like that, as you have.
Now, if YOU want to go beyond the authors conclusion and make statements not supported by the paper, then all bet's are off. There is no reason for for us to think that the temperature trend will continue under the model prediction, because if the model prediction is not correlated to actual temperature then (statistically speaking) the fact that the predicting is currently "overestimating" is meaningless - there is no relationship between what the model predicts and what the temperature will actually do. So, if we accept your theory, we have no idea of the impacts of CO2 climate forcing and interactions between forcings - the temperature might suddenly rise by 20 degrees, or drop by 10. Anything could happen. Unless you are advocating we accept some absurdly crude model like looking at a graph and assuming that the gap between the lines stays the same and that we can imply regression - which would be, quite frankly, absurd and useless. We aren't going to draw a line with a pencil.
Might I suggest that your conclusions, if you broadcast them, will cause mass panic amongst the population and you probably need to do some research or find some papers supporting your assertions before spouting such alarmist nonsense again.
My point was that some people respect poorly supported hypotheses as if they were fact, and if you point out that they are poorly supported (like the runaway Venus effect), they call you deniers.
And my point is, that "anthropogenic climate change is not real" IS the poorly supported hypothesis, respected by some if it were fact. If this hypothesis were supported by data, then someone would have posted that data. This you accept - becanse when asked, you couldn't produce the data, which logically means you accept there is none. People who assert such things but can't back them up, yet continue to insist they are true are rightly labelled deniers, because they are in denial.
But now that you want evidence of specific problems in climate science, papers like this one are showing how wrong the computer models actually are [ed.ac.uk]. Also the East Anglia emails show that there are people in the field who are not scientists, whether they are right or not.
I notice that in the observed data for temperature there is a distinct upward trend. This alone falsifies the central premise "there's no such thing as anthropogenic climate change". I'm sure you are also aware that prior to 1998 the models consistently underestimated the climate trend, just as they underestimate increase in the polar regions today. On balance then, if you think that the models don't accurately reflect the current trend then the trend is just as likely to be worse as it is to be better i.e. the models are as likely to be underestimating the climate shift as they are to be overestimating.
That's what you meant, then - that the models are as likely to be underestimating as they are to be overestimating.
People opt out of information all the time, including times when knowing something might objectively be helpful, but deliberate ignorance leads to a sense of comfort. Denial.
It's actually a common phenomena and a strategy for managing bad news, be it about cancer or climate change. The problem arises when the person in denial does not move on to other mental states, but merely clings to denial "I don't have cancer", "there's no such thing as climate change" etc.
I find it hard, given available evidence to imagine how you came to that conclusion.
Verifiable [slashdot.org].
So what this verifies is that when asked to be specific about the problems with the data, you couldn't describe any problems, let alone provide meaningful citations to back your allegations. Instead, you speculated in general terms about a group of people who have trouble separating verifiable information from speculation. In short, you described yourself.
You said in fact saying the opposite. Can you find an instance of him in fact saying the opposite or not? If you think you can, then point me to the statement from the OP that states the opposite (i.e positively supports mitigation, not inadvertent support, not unconscious support, not neutral, positive support). If you can't, then say you can't, and move on.
In the meantime I'm interested in your assertion that climate change won't lead to more food insecurity for people in the Least Developed Nations
You do come across as a guy interested in non-existent things, so I am not surprised.
This whole post of yours was purely repetitive that I was able to answer just with recent other posts. You can loop through the posts - make posts on my behalf by copying and pasting from my posts, and reply to them yourself. There is enough material for you to last a lifetime of such repetitive discussions. Good luck.
Frankly, I find this whole topic a bit boring. I have no idea why (a) you chose to accuse me of something you couldn't prove and thus lost the opportunity to talk about something interesting (b) When this accusation was disproven, chose to keep rehashing it.
My thinking at the moment is that you didn't want to talk about the impacts of climate on the vulnerable.
Well, it seems to me that you have a message to give (that climate change is a vast conspiracy) and you feel the need to keep coming back here despite being schooled many times. Not everybody would enjoy that level of embarrassment from having spoken out in public on a topic and being wrong.
And today, you argument (as stated) rests on saying nothing. You refuse to give one verifiable item of information. That woudl only lead to yet more humiliation.
But I accept your explanation that you are, in fact, a masochist.
I'm not entirely convinced that there is a legitimate case for allowing injurious speech on the basis of race, anymore than libel - if you say something which is incorrect in law, and you injure someone by saying it, then you are liable and should compensate that person or persons.
It seems strange that we would make an exemption for race.
In the case in question the person charged (and convicted) had referred to indigeneous australians of mixed race in an injurious fashion and it was found to be not factual. If he had alleged that they had stolen money (when they hadn't), then - what's the difference?
In any case, whilst we might not want to send the police after schoolboy sniggering, or drunken rants against asians, or whatever, there is always going to be a limit, and the current limits, without making eveyr case of racism a matter of law, certainly dealt with some serious cases where a legal response was appropriate.
I just don't see what benefit we gain by legitimising assault based on narrowly defined parameters, just becuase some person who was a prominent supporter of the current regime in power turns out to be a racist throwback with ideas out of 1960's South Africa. "Mixed Blood" indeed.
Fallacy? You have trouble understanding that some science is more settled than others. That puts you pretty deeply into the retard camp. This isn't even a controversial point, and you still have trouble with it.
You claim that the world is ignorant of the truth of climate science, but refuse to tell us what that truth is. I'm sure that will be a winning strategy.
Interesting. The thread is about the IPCC and someone posted a comment about the IPCC and you went off topic to attack someone entirely unrelated to the IPCC.
The thread is not about the IPCC, it's about the IPCCs summary of the current state of the conclusions of climate science. Note that they are not the findings of the IPCC, who merely collated and summarise the relevant scientific material. Therefore, to attack the IPCC for the content of these findings is both an ad hominem and monumentally stupid. If we removed the summary, the content is still there. The only way to address the science is to address, specifically, the conclusions of the science by highlighting the experimental and observational errors.
If the OP has decided to make corruption and lying the subject, then so be it. It is not possible to consider corruption and lying in this debate by focussing only on the people who aren't corrupt and aren't lying - no, to discuss corruption, we should discuss corruption, and to talk of lying, we must focus on those who are lying.
If the IPCC lying is not okay, why is it OK for Anthony Watts or Judith Curry to lie?
but adding extra adjectives to the support just because you're stupid doesn't work.
I'll be sure to bear that in mind in case I'm tempted to ever do that.
In the meantime I'm interested in your assertion that climate change won't lead to more food insecurity for people in the Least Developed Nations. Can you provide a hypothesis as to why?
Odd, I've made the same statements as those who give their own theories and given you their own sources including the source data.
Are you having trouble grasping the notion of "burden of proof"?
Cite specifically from AR4 where the following predictions are made:
1. You claimed "that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years." Cite this claim specifically
2. You claimed to have citation stating there would be "No glaciers by 2000" Cite this.
3. " no snow falls by 2000 and 2010 in europe," Cite this from peer reviewed material
4. no polar ice caps - provide this citation (Noting that it must be for both poles and must predict that would be no polar ice caps before 2014 to qualify per your criteria).
I guess that's your own problem if you don't want to read through it all.
Incorrect. Your inability to justify your assertions is your problem, not mine.
We get it, you are climate change believers.... can we move on.... please.
That's an awkward turn of phrase - 'climate change believer' , like calling someone who drives a car an 'oxidation believer' or someone who is careful on a ladder a 'gravity believer'.
In any case, no, we won't stop discussing an important topic just because it makes you uncomfortable. And it will continue to have import for hundreds of years, although I suspect if we bit the bullet and did something now the discussion later would be less fraught - like pulling a painful tooth.
Ironically of course, the reasons this topic appears so often on Slashdot are (a) because it's science and we left brainers tend to be interested in sciencey things (b) Because the efforts of major vested interests to generate discord + some curious psychology has created a community of people who think climate change is a conspiracy , and the discourse between this latter group of conspiracy theorists and those that accept the science makes for many page views.
So, somewhat ironically, it's the remnant controversy that makes it a popular topic for slashdot editors.
You've misunderstood. I'm not interested in generalities and vague allegation. You've made some specific assertions, which is good, becuase now you get to prove each one, in detail, quoting the relevant text from a scientific journal:
1. You claimed "that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years." Cite this claim specifically
2. You claimed to have citation stating there would be "No glaciers by 2000" Cite this.
3. " no snow falls by 2000 and 2010 in europe," Cite this from peer reviewed material
4. no polar ice caps - provide this citation (Noting that it must be for both poles and must predict that would be no polar ice caps before 2014 to qualify per your criteria).
I particularly like the ones on no glaciers in the Himalayas, that were based on no evidence by Greenpeace, with no scientific data.
Your mistake. This doesn't qualify as an example of scientific literature (get a full understand of the composition of AR4 before mouthing off next time, moron), and they (the authors of the piece) didn't say "no glaciers in the himalayas" they made reference to one glacier completely disappearing. In an opinion piece.
I think of the US more as the star player who has gone to seed, and is only now just starting to realise it. He still think of himself as the hero of the team (and indeed, his skills are still exemplary - not what they used to be, but nothing to laugh at either). But nowadays, fitness is not what it should be, too many nights out, too many scandals, too many occasions where his friends had to hush up some indiscretion or other.
Sure, knock yourself out posting your evidence. It would make a nice change form denialists who consistently speak in generalities or hyperbole and then when questioned tell us they were only being 'sarcastic', as if the climate sensitivity to CO2 can somehow be reduced to zero by the application of rhetoric in the general direction.
As if the climate is somehow open to achieving consensus if we can just act like it's a political opponent for long enough: "OK OK, we'll agree to a climate sensitivity of 1.8, NOT 2.3 but you have to agree to cuts in the budget for National Parks"..
Anyway, like I was saying, feel free to post you evidence.
In cases of ambiguity, later statements do provide context and clarification. You did not disagree that there was ambiguity. Your absolute refusal to consider this indicates that you are not approaching this honestly.
I would like you to point me to the statement from the OP that states the opposite (i.e positively supports mitigation, not inadvertent support, not unconscious support, not neutral, positive support).
I would like you to point me to the statement from Elvis Presley where he talked about giraffes and mastiffs. I can ask for irrelevant citations too, see?
You can't justify your assertion? That's fine, because then your argument is falsified. The OP did not express support for mitigation.
And you openly acknowledge that the statement "I support moving to green technologies" created just such an ambiguity.
No I don't. You are getting stupider by the day.
I stated several times that there was ambiguity there, and asked you to demonstrate why there was no ambiguity. You chose not to contradict it. You didn't argue the point -> safe to assume you either agree, or can't argue it, which is functionally the same. Simple assertions of denial will not suffice.
In any case we have established that the OP did not express support for mitigation, which effectively brings this conversation to a satisfactory close.
1. Your misinterpretation cannot be pardoned by anything that happens since - any other posts that can be made by any other poster any where. Nothing will change the fact that it is stupid to hold someone as unwilling of mitigation when he clearly supports mitigation in imprecise words.
I'm not making excuses. I'm asking you to provide proof of your assertion(s): Namely, that I misinterpreted his support for mitigation.
2. Note that the sequence of events related above, does not involve me reading all the posts in this story, especially those that are not addressed to me.
To put it bluntly: you refuse to read the relevant contextual material.
I would like you to point me to the statement from the OP that states the opposite (i.e positively supports mitigation, not inadvertent support, not unconscious support, not neutral, positive support).
I don't know or care about the irrelevant fact of his motivation for saying the opposite.
Seems relevant to me. If, in context, it is most likely he/she "saying the opposite" because saying it sets up an ambiguity fallacy, or a special pleading, then the correct way to respond would be quite different to if there was no reason to think it did NOT represent his/her genuine point of view.
And if a poster makes a statement with 2 interpretations, one of which is contradicted by earlier statements, a reasonable person would select the other. And you openly acknowledge that the statement "I support moving to green technologies" created just such an ambiguity.
He/she created an ambiguity, I asked him/her to clarify that ambiguity, he/she could not do so.
On balance, it seems my response at the time was correct. (Here it is
You'll note in my response that I make no judgement about whether or not he/she supports mitigation.
This is the evidence where you quoted some material from the IPCC as evidence against an exaggerated claim that the IPCC did not make? That evidence? That evidence that demonstrated the complete opposite of what you were saying? Is that the evidence you are referring to?
I would happily explain more if you don't understand it.
Oh by all means, more clown acts please. I need a laugh. Knock yourself out.
But if you haven't gotten to the point where you understand that some parts of climate science are settled science, and others are unsupported conjectures, you're going to have trouble understanding things that are more subtle. So there's really no point in continuing on until you understand that.
I love this new "reverse appeal to ignorance" quasi-ad hominem fallacy. You claim that the world is ignorant of the truth of climate science, but refuse to tell us what that truth is. I'm sure that will be a winning strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
Which countries are you referring to?
Maybe, but you've got nothing. I know how much research you've done (very little), I don't think you've even read the IPCC report.
You aren't arguing against my theory, but against science. I guess your "feelings" weren't giving you an accurate reading on that one. You could always try reading chicken entrails on the matter.
Until you get knowledge, you're not worth talking to.
And we're back to fallacy again.
I take it you haven't actually quantified the actual effects of secondary feedbacks and thus your boasting re: knowing more about climate than climatologists is a bit empty.
Talk to you again in three years when my point is even more obvious.
Well, thanks, but if I wanted non-scientific predictions on the future I would have gone to palm reader. Seriously, your argument is laughable.
It's not my estimate, sorry you misunderstood. I 'estimate' it based on established science.
You literally took half a sentence from that article to base your theory on, and ignored the other half.
In short you think that feedbacks have precisely zero effect on the climate. That is, may I say, a radical theory, and one which is contradicted by both papers you have so far referenced
Not zero, merely minimal effect.
Quantify this "minimal effect". Show us the observational data from the climate record which justifies a "minimal effect".
If you look at the bad science going on in the climate science world, it's not surprising. How many scientists are looking for positive feedbacks? How much effort is put into looking for negative feedbacks? How much effort is put into discrediting the scientists who propose negative feedbacks?
So climate science is a vast conspiracy?
And the moon is made of cheese as well - if we search our feelings, we know it to be true.
But, setting aside for the moment descriptions of the fairy land in which you live, if you've quantified the effect of secondary feedbacks, then show us the observations and model that quantifies it that we may peer review this material. We aren't interested in how you feel about the likelihood of positive feedbacks.
Do you find it reasonable that feedbacks would end up being multiple times larger than the initial forcing? Even that idea is questionable, and ought to require strong evidence.
Your idea is questionable and in need of strong evidence. Supposing there IS uncertainty feedbacks don't suddenly become zero. All that happens is we become uncertain - in that circumstance we can say nothing about the likely impacts of secondary feedbacks. If the models and analysis of the climate record is wrong, then all bets are off - they could easily be underestimating the effect. You have said and provided nothing (except descriptions of your feelings) to justify the notion of increased certainty that feedbacks are quantifiable as at or near zero (in contrast to what actual observation tells us).
What is the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 in C/(W/m2)? .
Look for example on page 38 here [pik-potsdam.de]. This is easily found information.
?? Don't know why you describe your estimate of climate sensitivity to be easily found information you might want to consider that you aren't as widely published as you might have thought. In any case, your cite is very revealing: previously you said that a doubling of CO2 (presumably from baseline 270 ppm) would result in the a rise of 1 degree C. But this paper says that a rise of 1 degree C is what we can expect from simple forcing discounting any secondary effects from feedback. See this:
Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2 ) would result in 1C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed
In short you think that feedbacks have precisely zero effect on the climate. That is, may I say, a radical theory, and one which is contradicted by both papers you have so far referenced. I'm looking forward to you detailed explanation of how your theory matches the climate record (which is, as I'm sure you know, widely thought to contradict your central dictum).
And of course to avoid me referencing your potential alarmist guesstimate method, you meant to say that you have a model which you are using for this prediction, and hence "so far the evidence supports my hypothesis". So where is this model? Provide a cite to a journal in which your model is published.
Please cite your own model at your earliest convenience (oh great sensei).
No, my hypothesis is that doubling CO2 will cause just under a ~1 degree increase in global temperature
I'm sure you realise (o great sensei) that you need to state your sensitivity in the correct units: What is the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 in C/(W/m2)? .
And justify your estimate with reference to the paleoclimate (i'm sure I don't need to school you, sensei, on how science works).
and that most of the techniques used by the models to push that estimate higher are crap. So far the evidence supports my hypothesis.
And of course to avoid me referencing your potential alarmist guesstimate method, you meant to say that you have a model which you are using for this prediction, and hence "so far the evidence supports my hypothesis". So where is this model? Provide a cite to a journal in which your model is published.
And my point is, that "anthropogenic climate change is not real" IS the poorly supported hypothesis, respected by some if it were fact. If this hypothesis were supported by data, then someone would have posted that data. This you accept - because when asked, you couldn't produce the data, which logically means you accept there is none. People who assert such things but can't back them up, yet continue to insist they are true are rightly labelled deniers, because they are in denial.
It's entertaining to me how bad you are at reading comprehension. Go find someone who said "anthropogenic climate change is not real" because I never said that.
Never said you did. Maybe YOU need to learn to read, or at least keep a basic grasp of the discussion.
On balance then, if you think that the models don't accurately reflect the current trend then the trend is just as likely to be worse as it is to be better i.e. the models are as likely to be underestimating the climate shift as they are to be overestimating.
No, they are overestimating, which you would know if you'd actually read the paper! Ha! You failed to read again! Or even look at the pretty graph.
Once again, YOU need to read the paper. Without touching too much on whether their analysis is flawed or not, they do say that the trend predicted by the models does not match the observed temperature trend over and arbitrarily selected period. They also say: However, this is difficult to assess as the observed and simulated variations in global temperature that are associated with the AMO seem to be dominated by a large and concurrent signal of presumed anthropogenic origin (Supplementary Fig.S1). - global warming is happening and impacting stochastic processes over periods shorter than the useful granularity of the model prediction. And they also say Ultimately the causes of this inconsistency will only be understood after careful comparison of simulated internal climate variability and climate model forcings with observations from the past two decades, and by waiting to see how global temperature responds over the coming decades. or, to put it in laymans terms - the significance of a lack of correlation between trend and prediction is not understood by the authors, so we'll wait and see.
And nothing they have said implies anything about the accuracy of the model suite over time range they are designed to be accurate over, and there is no indication they intended to imply anything like that, as you have. Now, if YOU want to go beyond the authors conclusion and make statements not supported by the paper, then all bet's are off. There is no reason for for us to think that the temperature trend will continue under the model prediction, because if the model prediction is not correlated to actual temperature then (statistically speaking) the fact that the predicting is currently "overestimating" is meaningless - there is no relationship between what the model predicts and what the temperature will actually do. So, if we accept your theory, we have no idea of the impacts of CO2 climate forcing and interactions between forcings - the temperature might suddenly rise by 20 degrees, or drop by 10. Anything could happen. Unless you are advocating we accept some absurdly crude model like looking at a graph and assuming that the gap between the lines stays the same and that we can imply regression - which would be, quite frankly, absurd and useless. We aren't going to draw a line with a pencil.
Might I suggest that your conclusions, if you broadcast them, will cause mass panic amongst the population and you probably need to do some research or find some papers supporting your assertions before spouting such alarmist nonsense again.
My point was that some people respect poorly supported hypotheses as if they were fact, and if you point out that they are poorly supported (like the runaway Venus effect), they call you deniers.
And my point is, that "anthropogenic climate change is not real" IS the poorly supported hypothesis, respected by some if it were fact. If this hypothesis were supported by data, then someone would have posted that data. This you accept - becanse when asked, you couldn't produce the data, which logically means you accept there is none. People who assert such things but can't back them up, yet continue to insist they are true are rightly labelled deniers, because they are in denial.
But now that you want evidence of specific problems in climate science, papers like this one are showing how wrong the computer models actually are [ed.ac.uk]. Also the East Anglia emails show that there are people in the field who are not scientists, whether they are right or not.
I notice that in the observed data for temperature there is a distinct upward trend. This alone falsifies the central premise "there's no such thing as anthropogenic climate change". I'm sure you are also aware that prior to 1998 the models consistently underestimated the climate trend, just as they underestimate increase in the polar regions today. On balance then, if you think that the models don't accurately reflect the current trend then the trend is just as likely to be worse as it is to be better i.e. the models are as likely to be underestimating the climate shift as they are to be overestimating.
That's what you meant, then - that the models are as likely to be underestimating as they are to be overestimating.
It's actually a common phenomena and a strategy for managing bad news, be it about cancer or climate change. The problem arises when the person in denial does not move on to other mental states, but merely clings to denial "I don't have cancer", "there's no such thing as climate change" etc.
I seriously doubt you can read.
I find it hard, given available evidence to imagine how you came to that conclusion.
Verifiable [slashdot.org].
So what this verifies is that when asked to be specific about the problems with the data, you couldn't describe any problems, let alone provide meaningful citations to back your allegations. Instead, you speculated in general terms about a group of people who have trouble separating verifiable information from speculation. In short, you described yourself.
Then prove it.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I said prove it, not repeat claims that have already been falsified.
I'll be sure to bear that in mind in case I'm tempted to ever do that.
first paragraph here : http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said in fact saying the opposite. Can you find an instance of him in fact saying the opposite or not? If you think you can, then point me to the statement from the OP that states the opposite (i.e positively supports mitigation, not inadvertent support, not unconscious support, not neutral, positive support). If you can't, then say you can't, and move on.
In the meantime I'm interested in your assertion that climate change won't lead to more food insecurity for people in the Least Developed Nations
You do come across as a guy interested in non-existent things, so I am not surprised.
This whole post of yours was purely repetitive that I was able to answer just with recent other posts. You can loop through the posts - make posts on my behalf by copying and pasting from my posts, and reply to them yourself. There is enough material for you to last a lifetime of such repetitive discussions. Good luck.
Frankly, I find this whole topic a bit boring. I have no idea why (a) you chose to accuse me of something you couldn't prove and thus lost the opportunity to talk about something interesting (b) When this accusation was disproven, chose to keep rehashing it.
My thinking at the moment is that you didn't want to talk about the impacts of climate on the vulnerable.
And today, you argument (as stated) rests on saying nothing. You refuse to give one verifiable item of information. That woudl only lead to yet more humiliation.
But I accept your explanation that you are, in fact, a masochist.
It seems strange that we would make an exemption for race.
In the case in question the person charged (and convicted) had referred to indigeneous australians of mixed race in an injurious fashion and it was found to be not factual. If he had alleged that they had stolen money (when they hadn't), then - what's the difference?
In any case, whilst we might not want to send the police after schoolboy sniggering, or drunken rants against asians, or whatever, there is always going to be a limit, and the current limits, without making eveyr case of racism a matter of law, certainly dealt with some serious cases where a legal response was appropriate.
I just don't see what benefit we gain by legitimising assault based on narrowly defined parameters, just becuase some person who was a prominent supporter of the current regime in power turns out to be a racist throwback with ideas out of 1960's South Africa. "Mixed Blood" indeed.
Fallacy? You have trouble understanding that some science is more settled than others. That puts you pretty deeply into the retard camp. This isn't even a controversial point, and you still have trouble with it.
You claim that the world is ignorant of the truth of climate science, but refuse to tell us what that truth is. I'm sure that will be a winning strategy.
Interesting. The thread is about the IPCC and someone posted a comment about the IPCC and you went off topic to attack someone entirely unrelated to the IPCC.
The thread is not about the IPCC, it's about the IPCCs summary of the current state of the conclusions of climate science. Note that they are not the findings of the IPCC, who merely collated and summarise the relevant scientific material. Therefore, to attack the IPCC for the content of these findings is both an ad hominem and monumentally stupid. If we removed the summary, the content is still there. The only way to address the science is to address, specifically, the conclusions of the science by highlighting the experimental and observational errors.
If the OP has decided to make corruption and lying the subject, then so be it. It is not possible to consider corruption and lying in this debate by focussing only on the people who aren't corrupt and aren't lying - no, to discuss corruption, we should discuss corruption, and to talk of lying, we must focus on those who are lying.
If the IPCC lying is not okay, why is it OK for Anthony Watts or Judith Curry to lie?
He did support mitigation
Then prove it.
but adding extra adjectives to the support just because you're stupid doesn't work.
I'll be sure to bear that in mind in case I'm tempted to ever do that.
In the meantime I'm interested in your assertion that climate change won't lead to more food insecurity for people in the Least Developed Nations. Can you provide a hypothesis as to why?
Odd, I've made the same statements as those who give their own theories and given you their own sources including the source data.
Are you having trouble grasping the notion of "burden of proof"?
Cite specifically from AR4 where the following predictions are made:
1. You claimed "that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years." Cite this claim specifically
2. You claimed to have citation stating there would be "No glaciers by 2000" Cite this.
3. " no snow falls by 2000 and 2010 in europe," Cite this from peer reviewed material
4. no polar ice caps - provide this citation (Noting that it must be for both poles and must predict that would be no polar ice caps before 2014 to qualify per your criteria).
I guess that's your own problem if you don't want to read through it all.
Incorrect. Your inability to justify your assertions is your problem, not mine.
We get it, you are climate change believers.... can we move on.... please.
That's an awkward turn of phrase - 'climate change believer' , like calling someone who drives a car an 'oxidation believer' or someone who is careful on a ladder a 'gravity believer'.
In any case, no, we won't stop discussing an important topic just because it makes you uncomfortable. And it will continue to have import for hundreds of years, although I suspect if we bit the bullet and did something now the discussion later would be less fraught - like pulling a painful tooth.
Ironically of course, the reasons this topic appears so often on Slashdot are (a) because it's science and we left brainers tend to be interested in sciencey things (b) Because the efforts of major vested interests to generate discord + some curious psychology has created a community of people who think climate change is a conspiracy , and the discourse between this latter group of conspiracy theorists and those that accept the science makes for many page views.
So, somewhat ironically, it's the remnant controversy that makes it a popular topic for slashdot editors.
1. You claimed "that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years." Cite this claim specifically
2. You claimed to have citation stating there would be "No glaciers by 2000" Cite this.
3. " no snow falls by 2000 and 2010 in europe," Cite this from peer reviewed material
4. no polar ice caps - provide this citation (Noting that it must be for both poles and must predict that would be no polar ice caps before 2014 to qualify per your criteria).
I particularly like the ones on no glaciers in the Himalayas, that were based on no evidence by Greenpeace, with no scientific data.
Your mistake. This doesn't qualify as an example of scientific literature (get a full understand of the composition of AR4 before mouthing off next time, moron), and they (the authors of the piece) didn't say "no glaciers in the himalayas" they made reference to one glacier completely disappearing. In an opinion piece.
Now get on with it.
I think of the US more as the star player who has gone to seed, and is only now just starting to realise it. He still think of himself as the hero of the team (and indeed, his skills are still exemplary - not what they used to be, but nothing to laugh at either). But nowadays, fitness is not what it should be, too many nights out, too many scandals, too many occasions where his friends had to hush up some indiscretion or other.
As if the climate is somehow open to achieving consensus if we can just act like it's a political opponent for long enough: "OK OK, we'll agree to a climate sensitivity of 1.8, NOT 2.3 but you have to agree to cuts in the budget for National Parks"..
Anyway, like I was saying, feel free to post you evidence.
Already proved.
Incorrect.
Context cannot come later.
In cases of ambiguity, later statements do provide context and clarification. You did not disagree that there was ambiguity. Your absolute refusal to consider this indicates that you are not approaching this honestly.
He is saying the opposite.
I would like you to point me to the statement from the OP that states the opposite (i.e positively supports mitigation, not inadvertent support, not unconscious support, not neutral, positive support).
I would like you to point me to the statement from Elvis Presley where he talked about giraffes and mastiffs. I can ask for irrelevant citations too, see?
You can't justify your assertion? That's fine, because then your argument is falsified. The OP did not express support for mitigation.
And you openly acknowledge that the statement "I support moving to green technologies" created just such an ambiguity.
No I don't. You are getting stupider by the day.
I stated several times that there was ambiguity there, and asked you to demonstrate why there was no ambiguity. You chose not to contradict it. You didn't argue the point -> safe to assume you either agree, or can't argue it, which is functionally the same. Simple assertions of denial will not suffice.
In any case we have established that the OP did not express support for mitigation, which effectively brings this conversation to a satisfactory close.
1. Your misinterpretation cannot be pardoned by anything that happens since - any other posts that can be made by any other poster any where. Nothing will change the fact that it is stupid to hold someone as unwilling of mitigation when he clearly supports mitigation in imprecise words.
I'm not making excuses. I'm asking you to provide proof of your assertion(s): Namely, that I misinterpreted his support for mitigation.
2. Note that the sequence of events related above, does not involve me reading all the posts in this story, especially those that are not addressed to me.
To put it bluntly: you refuse to read the relevant contextual material.
He is saying the opposite.
I would like you to point me to the statement from the OP that states the opposite (i.e positively supports mitigation, not inadvertent support, not unconscious support, not neutral, positive support).
I don't know or care about the irrelevant fact of his motivation for saying the opposite.
Seems relevant to me. If, in context, it is most likely he/she "saying the opposite" because saying it sets up an ambiguity fallacy, or a special pleading, then the correct way to respond would be quite different to if there was no reason to think it did NOT represent his/her genuine point of view.
And if a poster makes a statement with 2 interpretations, one of which is contradicted by earlier statements, a reasonable person would select the other. And you openly acknowledge that the statement "I support moving to green technologies" created just such an ambiguity. He/she created an ambiguity, I asked him/her to clarify that ambiguity, he/she could not do so.
On balance, it seems my response at the time was correct. (Here it is
You'll note in my response that I make no judgement about whether or not he/she supports mitigation.
I presented evidence already
This is the evidence where you quoted some material from the IPCC as evidence against an exaggerated claim that the IPCC did not make? That evidence? That evidence that demonstrated the complete opposite of what you were saying? Is that the evidence you are referring to?
I would happily explain more if you don't understand it.
Oh by all means, more clown acts please. I need a laugh. Knock yourself out.
But if you haven't gotten to the point where you understand that some parts of climate science are settled science, and others are unsupported conjectures, you're going to have trouble understanding things that are more subtle. So there's really no point in continuing on until you understand that.
I love this new "reverse appeal to ignorance" quasi-ad hominem fallacy. You claim that the world is ignorant of the truth of climate science, but refuse to tell us what that truth is. I'm sure that will be a winning strategy.