Believer here. No evidence required. As the "pro-science" side, we are free to say whatever we like. Nobody will scrutinize us because we all hold the same beliefs. Nobody wants to hurt a member of their own team.
97% of the skeptics here are paid by the Koch brothers.
Overwhelming scientific support? That's a myth that is repeated over and over and over...
If the global warming scare is based largely on model predictions which have failed, and scientists are scrambling to try to explain why they failed... I really don't understand how you can say my skepticism is unwarranted.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is likely contributing some heat to the climate. But a climate sensitivity of 3-4 degrees? That's preposterous. There is no evidence for it, it's simply assumed in the models. The latest climate sensitivity "estimates" are far lower, the latest being around 1.3 degrees. Low climate sensitivity translates directly to no dangerous global warming. That would explain why there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. Everyone's time would be better spent focusing on innovative nuclear projects, where everybody wins. Fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. But no, the oceans are not going to boil if we are stuck using fossil fuels for the next decade or two. Sorry to disappoint you.
Ironically it's this misguided fixation on CO2 that is delaying our transition to new energy sources.
Lol. I said there was no global warming for the past 17 years and that scientists were trying to figure out why. The Nature article says: "Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation." That's direct, concrete evidence that backs up what I'm saying. I gave you a link where you can see the various data sets for yourself. I have no idea who hosts that app, but if you think they are using fake data, go download the datasets for yourself, or keep your head in the sand. I know for a fact they are accurate because I've checked, and besides nobody is disputing there has been no warming for 17 years anymore except global warming devotees who are in denial. If you dispute that no warming has taken place, maybe you should write to Nature and ask THEM why they say there has been a "hiatus" for 16 years (at the time). I don't need to "publish a paper" that shows climate sensitivity is much lower than the IPCC estimates. Others have already done this for me. If you were well informed on this subject, you would already know this and I wouldn't have to keep spoon feeding you information. I don't know what other thread you are talking about, but obviously I am talking about the IPCC climate models. They have failed to predict the 17 year pause, which explains why scientists must now "piece together an explanation", according to the science journal Nature. If you won't accept the journal Nature or the actual climate data, then there is nothing you will accept. That's religion, not science.
I never made any allegations. I don't know if there is anything wrong with their methodology. How could I know either way if they were not making their methodology public? That was the entire point, which you fail to understand. Do you seriously support keeping scientific data and methodology secret?
Are you saying that scientific claims should be assumed correct until proven wrong? If I say pink bunnies fly out of my ass at night, and you disagree, it's up to you to prove me wrong? The fact is, the models made predictions, and those predictions have failed. I don't need to prove the models wrong. They have proven themselves wrong. I'm just pointing it out. It matters because the model predictions are the basis for much of the global warming scare. I gave you the data-sets; I showed you the article from the journal Nature; I backed up my claims with evidence. And yet you are apparently unable to figure out which 17 years I am talking about? Wouldn't an informed person on this issue already know it hasn't warmed in the last 17 years? You would think that 17 years of no statistically significant surface warming would be an important fact to be aware of, but apparently you are not well informed.
You ask "Should models be falsifiable"? Isn't it blatantly obvious that climate models should be falsifiable? That we should have specific criteria by which we can judge a models reliability in predicting future results? Instead, in climate science, we get constantly shifting goal posts. "We'll know the models are wrong if there is no warming for a period of 15 years or more." 15 years later: "We'll know the models are wrong if there is no warming for a period of 20 years or more". A few years later and still no warming: "We'll know the models are wrong if there is no warming for a period of 50 years or more." That's not science.
Again, I am not making any claims about the temperature adjustments. The NOAA is the one claiming their adjustments are sound and justified. That may well be true, but I am curious how they got their results and would like to see the evidence that supports their assertions. Thus far they have not released that evidence, so I am not able to verify their results. I see no reason why I should just take their word for it. Science is about letting other people check your work. This is science 101 stuff and should be dead obvious to anyone with any scientific literacy at all.
Can you imagine an oil funded think-tank making claims about global warming but refusing to release their data or their methodology? I bet you would be all over the lack of verifiability and reproducibility in that case. Like I said, people only seem to care about scientific principles when it suits them.
I actually don't know if there is anything wrong with the adjustments. But they do look a little high - a degree or more of warming can be attributed to adjustments in some places. I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used. So far they have not been forthcoming. I would like to be able to scrutinize their work, but I can't. I would like to try to repeat their work, but I can't. Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method. I'd like to think warmists and skeptics could agree on matters of scientific principle, but so far I have been sorely disappointed. It seems both sides only stand up for scientific principles when it suits them.
The "pause" is real. In this nature article they characterize the pause as mysterious, and describe the various explanations scientists are piecing together to try to explain it. I find it interesting that they don't consider the simplest explanation - that the climate models grossly exaggerated "climate sensitivity", especially since the latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower than the ones used in the models. (Climate sensitivity is the hypothesis that the earth is hyper-reactive to CO2, that a little extra heat from CO2 causes a major chain reaction, amplifying that heat by 3-4 times. Climate sensitivity is a key issue in the debate, at least among the scientifically literate.)
In 2009, Phil Jones suggested 15 years of no warming would be cause for concern. Judith Curry said more recently: "Climate model simulations find that the probability of a hiatus as long as 20 years is vanishingly small." At what point is this theory falsifiable? How long do we have to wait? 15 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years of no warming before we can say the global warming scare was grossly exaggerated?
If you are still not convinced that the "pause" is real, you can look at the datasets for yourself. Here's the HADCRUT 4 dataset, and here's the RSS dataset. You can play with the app and the various datasets, although it's not very granular.
Heck, the government should take a big chunk of the 80 billion they spend promoting global warming and spend it on researching solutions (to a lot of problems). Meanwhile nuclear projects can't get the funding they need. The MIT fusion program was almost shut down. Focus Fusion is resorting to crowd funding to get the equipment they need. Wtf? It makes no sense.
and when they can explain why the warming has stopped for the last couple of decades.
It hasn't, at all.
According to the various data-sets, there has been no statistically significant surface warming for 17 years. How can we have an honest discussion if you won't admit to plain facts?
The other big problem is political. There is no need to rely on inherently dangerous designs. What we need is more innovation. We need funding for lots of smaller projects rather than one or two mammoth projects. There is no reason why we can't build a nuclear reactor that is safe and cheap sometime in the next 5 - 10 years if we put our minds to it. I am a climate skeptic, but I also recognize that fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. Nuclear is the only way forward, and skeptics and alarmists should be able to get together on this issue and push hard. It benefits everybody.
We are wading into philosophical waters. I practice something akin to pragmatism, or instrumentalism. The cool thing about this approach is that it is belief free. It's all about usefulness. Simply put, don't confuse the map for the territory. Models are as good as they are useful. They can help us do stuff, and they can lead us to greater insight, leading to more useful models. But it leaves room for mystery. I don't pretend to truly grok whatever it is that I experience - that we call gravity - just because I can predict a trajectory.
Beliefs tend to close doors, seed dogmas, and lead to consensus thinking. Instrumentalism neutralizes beliefs, showing them for what they really are: opinions. This allows for greater flexibility and freedom of thought. I find the instrumentalist approach fun and exciting; it leaves the possibility wide open that we are only barely scratching the surface of reality.
Instrumentalism is even applicable in mysticism. If I were to use a certain meditation technique, and I found I could get consistent, positive, and beneficial results, great! But to use those positive experiences as the basis for a belief that Jesus or Buddha was radiating me with golden light... that would be a mistake. Human beings have been engaging in mystical and religious practices for thousands of years. The instrumentalist approach offers a way to intelligently engage and experiment with these practices without getting sucked in or consumed by a quagmire of beliefs. I'm an optimist. I see instrumentalism as an approach that could have a unifying effect; I think it could help bridge the gap between science and religion. At the very least I think it could lead to educated people treating religious people with a little more respect, even the ones who are hopelessly stuck in a repugnant belief system.
What a terribly limited and narrow definition of jazz improv. Grueling hours of practice, study and refinement in preparation for the spark to hit *in the moment* during a performance doesn't count as creativity in your books?
It is incredible that the only critics some seem capable of conjuring are creationists and Sarah Palin. They simply can't imagine that a reasonable person could reject the forecasts of catastrophe. These same people HAVE NOT READ the most intelligent and scathing criticisms of CAGW. They are content to watch the creationist buffoons on TV and convince themselves that THOSE are their critics.
And you'd be arguing the same thing if scientologists funded a study (with real scientists even - hired from the smoking companies no doubt) proving vaccinations were harmful? Somehow I doubt it. Questionable sources only seem to be an issue when they're on the wrong side of the fence.
Personally, I've only recently started looking into the issue and I have yet to find a site that addresses the specific criticisms and claims anti-vaccers talk about. My doctor wasn't even aware of the arguments being made by anti-vaccers, even though she is very pro-vacc and very concerned about the trend away from vaccinations. I'm still investigating; I'm not yet convinced that 9 vaccinations are desirable for an 8 week old baby.
If anybody can point me to sources that thoroughly address the specific claims described below, I'd appreciate.
From the linked articles comments:
Ben doesn't, of course, tell us that Prof Hviid and Melbye are in the employ of the Danish State vaccine manufacturers:
http://www.taap.info/DanishStudy2005.pdf
I think it would help if you cited studies not paid for by the vaccine industry before calling people "native".
When the pro-vaccine crowds sources are more dubious looking than the anti-vacc'ers - what then?
It is nice to think that at least today we KNOW that our myths are made-up.
But there are still some people who manage to insist they are real, actual events! - UFO religions like the Scientologists or heaven's gate.
Slashdot Mirror
Believer here. No evidence required. As the "pro-science" side, we are free to say whatever we like. Nobody will scrutinize us because we all hold the same beliefs. Nobody wants to hurt a member of their own team. 97% of the skeptics here are paid by the Koch brothers.
Overwhelming scientific support? That's a myth that is repeated over and over and over...
If the global warming scare is based largely on model predictions which have failed, and scientists are scrambling to try to explain why they failed... I really don't understand how you can say my skepticism is unwarranted. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is likely contributing some heat to the climate. But a climate sensitivity of 3-4 degrees? That's preposterous. There is no evidence for it, it's simply assumed in the models. The latest climate sensitivity "estimates" are far lower, the latest being around 1.3 degrees. Low climate sensitivity translates directly to no dangerous global warming. That would explain why there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. Everyone's time would be better spent focusing on innovative nuclear projects, where everybody wins. Fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. But no, the oceans are not going to boil if we are stuck using fossil fuels for the next decade or two. Sorry to disappoint you.
Ironically it's this misguided fixation on CO2 that is delaying our transition to new energy sources.
Wrong yet again. They published it because of the media attention generated over this issue. But good for them. They did the right thing.
Lol. I said there was no global warming for the past 17 years and that scientists were trying to figure out why. The Nature article says: "Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation." That's direct, concrete evidence that backs up what I'm saying. I gave you a link where you can see the various data sets for yourself. I have no idea who hosts that app, but if you think they are using fake data, go download the datasets for yourself, or keep your head in the sand. I know for a fact they are accurate because I've checked, and besides nobody is disputing there has been no warming for 17 years anymore except global warming devotees who are in denial. If you dispute that no warming has taken place, maybe you should write to Nature and ask THEM why they say there has been a "hiatus" for 16 years (at the time). I don't need to "publish a paper" that shows climate sensitivity is much lower than the IPCC estimates. Others have already done this for me. If you were well informed on this subject, you would already know this and I wouldn't have to keep spoon feeding you information. I don't know what other thread you are talking about, but obviously I am talking about the IPCC climate models. They have failed to predict the 17 year pause, which explains why scientists must now "piece together an explanation", according to the science journal Nature. If you won't accept the journal Nature or the actual climate data, then there is nothing you will accept. That's religion, not science.
I never made any allegations. I don't know if there is anything wrong with their methodology. How could I know either way if they were not making their methodology public? That was the entire point, which you fail to understand. Do you seriously support keeping scientific data and methodology secret?
Oh thanks. It's nice to see reason prevail once in a while.
Ah, good news. It appears the methodology and code has now been made available. (Or maybe not? I haven't read through the whole thing yet.) See? Science in action! Now I can check for myself.
Are you saying that scientific claims should be assumed correct until proven wrong? If I say pink bunnies fly out of my ass at night, and you disagree, it's up to you to prove me wrong? The fact is, the models made predictions, and those predictions have failed. I don't need to prove the models wrong. They have proven themselves wrong. I'm just pointing it out. It matters because the model predictions are the basis for much of the global warming scare. I gave you the data-sets; I showed you the article from the journal Nature; I backed up my claims with evidence. And yet you are apparently unable to figure out which 17 years I am talking about? Wouldn't an informed person on this issue already know it hasn't warmed in the last 17 years? You would think that 17 years of no statistically significant surface warming would be an important fact to be aware of, but apparently you are not well informed.
You ask "Should models be falsifiable"? Isn't it blatantly obvious that climate models should be falsifiable? That we should have specific criteria by which we can judge a models reliability in predicting future results? Instead, in climate science, we get constantly shifting goal posts. "We'll know the models are wrong if there is no warming for a period of 15 years or more." 15 years later: "We'll know the models are wrong if there is no warming for a period of 20 years or more". A few years later and still no warming: "We'll know the models are wrong if there is no warming for a period of 50 years or more." That's not science.
Again, I am not making any claims about the temperature adjustments. The NOAA is the one claiming their adjustments are sound and justified. That may well be true, but I am curious how they got their results and would like to see the evidence that supports their assertions. Thus far they have not released that evidence, so I am not able to verify their results. I see no reason why I should just take their word for it. Science is about letting other people check your work. This is science 101 stuff and should be dead obvious to anyone with any scientific literacy at all.
Can you imagine an oil funded think-tank making claims about global warming but refusing to release their data or their methodology? I bet you would be all over the lack of verifiability and reproducibility in that case. Like I said, people only seem to care about scientific principles when it suits them.
So you are saying science should be done in secret. That's not science, dude. Being able to reproduce and verify results is important.
I actually don't know if there is anything wrong with the adjustments. But they do look a little high - a degree or more of warming can be attributed to adjustments in some places. I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used. So far they have not been forthcoming. I would like to be able to scrutinize their work, but I can't. I would like to try to repeat their work, but I can't. Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method. I'd like to think warmists and skeptics could agree on matters of scientific principle, but so far I have been sorely disappointed. It seems both sides only stand up for scientific principles when it suits them.
The "pause" is real. In this nature article they characterize the pause as mysterious, and describe the various explanations scientists are piecing together to try to explain it. I find it interesting that they don't consider the simplest explanation - that the climate models grossly exaggerated "climate sensitivity", especially since the latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower than the ones used in the models. (Climate sensitivity is the hypothesis that the earth is hyper-reactive to CO2, that a little extra heat from CO2 causes a major chain reaction, amplifying that heat by 3-4 times. Climate sensitivity is a key issue in the debate, at least among the scientifically literate.)
In 2009, Phil Jones suggested 15 years of no warming would be cause for concern. Judith Curry said more recently: "Climate model simulations find that the probability of a hiatus as long as 20 years is vanishingly small." At what point is this theory falsifiable? How long do we have to wait? 15 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years of no warming before we can say the global warming scare was grossly exaggerated?
If you are still not convinced that the "pause" is real, you can look at the datasets for yourself. Here's the HADCRUT 4 dataset, and here's the RSS dataset. You can play with the app and the various datasets, although it's not very granular.
97% of scientists do not agree that humans are causing dangerous levels of global warming. That is a myth that needs to be busted.
Heck, the government should take a big chunk of the 80 billion they spend promoting global warming and spend it on researching solutions (to a lot of problems). Meanwhile nuclear projects can't get the funding they need. The MIT fusion program was almost shut down. Focus Fusion is resorting to crowd funding to get the equipment they need. Wtf? It makes no sense.
and when they can explain why the warming has stopped for the last couple of decades.
It hasn't, at all.
According to the various data-sets, there has been no statistically significant surface warming for 17 years. How can we have an honest discussion if you won't admit to plain facts?
The other big problem is political. There is no need to rely on inherently dangerous designs. What we need is more innovation. We need funding for lots of smaller projects rather than one or two mammoth projects. There is no reason why we can't build a nuclear reactor that is safe and cheap sometime in the next 5 - 10 years if we put our minds to it. I am a climate skeptic, but I also recognize that fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. Nuclear is the only way forward, and skeptics and alarmists should be able to get together on this issue and push hard. It benefits everybody.
We are wading into philosophical waters. I practice something akin to pragmatism, or instrumentalism. The cool thing about this approach is that it is belief free. It's all about usefulness. Simply put, don't confuse the map for the territory. Models are as good as they are useful. They can help us do stuff, and they can lead us to greater insight, leading to more useful models. But it leaves room for mystery. I don't pretend to truly grok whatever it is that I experience - that we call gravity - just because I can predict a trajectory.
Beliefs tend to close doors, seed dogmas, and lead to consensus thinking. Instrumentalism neutralizes beliefs, showing them for what they really are: opinions. This allows for greater flexibility and freedom of thought. I find the instrumentalist approach fun and exciting; it leaves the possibility wide open that we are only barely scratching the surface of reality.
Instrumentalism is even applicable in mysticism. If I were to use a certain meditation technique, and I found I could get consistent, positive, and beneficial results, great! But to use those positive experiences as the basis for a belief that Jesus or Buddha was radiating me with golden light... that would be a mistake. Human beings have been engaging in mystical and religious practices for thousands of years. The instrumentalist approach offers a way to intelligently engage and experiment with these practices without getting sucked in or consumed by a quagmire of beliefs. I'm an optimist. I see instrumentalism as an approach that could have a unifying effect; I think it could help bridge the gap between science and religion. At the very least I think it could lead to educated people treating religious people with a little more respect, even the ones who are hopelessly stuck in a repugnant belief system.
What a terribly limited and narrow definition of jazz improv. Grueling hours of practice, study and refinement in preparation for the spark to hit *in the moment* during a performance doesn't count as creativity in your books?
It is incredible that the only critics some seem capable of conjuring are creationists and Sarah Palin. They simply can't imagine that a reasonable person could reject the forecasts of catastrophe. These same people HAVE NOT READ the most intelligent and scathing criticisms of CAGW. They are content to watch the creationist buffoons on TV and convince themselves that THOSE are their critics.
If you feel the need to label and ostracize people who ask questions you are an ideologue.
Anyone who feels the need to label and ostracize people for asking questions is an ideologue.
And you'd be arguing the same thing if scientologists funded a study (with real scientists even - hired from the smoking companies no doubt) proving vaccinations were harmful? Somehow I doubt it. Questionable sources only seem to be an issue when they're on the wrong side of the fence.
Personally, I've only recently started looking into the issue and I have yet to find a site that addresses the specific criticisms and claims anti-vaccers talk about. My doctor wasn't even aware of the arguments being made by anti-vaccers, even though she is very pro-vacc and very concerned about the trend away from vaccinations. I'm still investigating; I'm not yet convinced that 9 vaccinations are desirable for an 8 week old baby.
If anybody can point me to sources that thoroughly address the specific claims described below, I'd appreciate.
A good overview of the various arguments anti-vaccers are making:
http://westonaprice.org/children/vaccinations.html
From the linked articles comments: Ben doesn't, of course, tell us that Prof Hviid and Melbye are in the employ of the Danish State vaccine manufacturers: http://www.taap.info/DanishStudy2005.pdf
I think it would help if you cited studies not paid for by the vaccine industry before calling people "native". When the pro-vaccine crowds sources are more dubious looking than the anti-vacc'ers - what then?