|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Global warming denialism/Archive7
No scientific forecasts of global warming[edit]
Hey guys, what do you have to say about this?
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=marketing_papers&sei-redir=1
"Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts... The IPCC Report was regarded as providing the most credible long-term forecasts of global average temperatures... In our audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report, we found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles... We concluded that the forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures... We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder."
FYI here is info on one of the authors: http://www.jscottarmstrong.com/ He sounds like he knows little about climatology, but rather is an expert in forecasting itself (e.g. he uses evidence-based forecasting principles). Abraxas (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's your problem right there. He's not a climatologist; both he and the coauthor work for business schools. We already know what the business world thinks about global warming, and they don't have a climatologist coauthor. No reason to assume credibility here. EVDebs (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's forecasting, and then there's forecasting. He may well be an expert on the type of forecasting done in the business world (such as curve-fitting based on past observations and the like), but my understanding is that climate models are based in physics rather than extrapolations from past observations. Looking at Armstrong's web page gives no evidence that he would know physics if it crawled up and bit him on the ass. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- "We already know what the business world thinks about global warming" - and we know what academicians receiving grants think about global warming.
- Okay, there's the Breitbart argument. What do you think they're actually doing with the grant money? They won't get more if they're not getting results that pass scientific muster. They're getting paid to model facts, not to put out "acceptable truths" like right-wing thinktanks. The implication of the argument is that climate scientists are just pocketing the cash, which comes perilously close to "it's always projection". EVDebs (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- "my understanding is that climate models are based in physics rather than extrapolations from past observations" - Are you kidding me? Can physics explain whether I choose an CO2-emitting SUV or a bicycle? Since humans are supposedly destroying the planet, what are the physics formulas behind human action that climatology employs in its forecasts? What is the physics behind guessing unknown feedback parameters to plug into disparate computer models?
- Anyway, it's clear that the climate believers are so deluded that they won't change their minds, even when their incorrectly prepared forecasts are falsified 100 years from now. Because they won't be alive then.Abraxas (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- [citation needed] "We'll show them" is not evidence. EVDebs (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Lol. Claiming to be able to predict the weather 100 years from now is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. The burden remains on the climatologists to show a proven track record of successful prognostication using their myriad computer models and feedback parameters.Abraxas (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- [citation needed] "We'll show them" is not evidence. EVDebs (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- "We already know what the business world thinks about global warming" - and we know what academicians receiving grants think about global warming.
- There's forecasting, and then there's forecasting. He may well be an expert on the type of forecasting done in the business world (such as curve-fitting based on past observations and the like), but my understanding is that climate models are based in physics rather than extrapolations from past observations. Looking at Armstrong's web page gives no evidence that he would know physics if it crawled up and bit him on the ass. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Silver-worthy?[edit]
The article's pretty thorough and well-referenced so I', thinking it might deserve to get bumped up to a silver brain. Thoughts? Sam Tally-ho! 04:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Is global warming falsifiable?[edit]
This graph sure seems to show its failure: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/NASA_vs_IPCC.jpg
Is there anything that will wake up the climate believers from their stupor? Maybe we need to wait 20 years and the look at the next version of this graph. Abraxas (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take the National Academy of Sciences over notrickszone.com myself, but I'm odd that way. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- "In the question of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - GalileoAbraxas (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- "They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown" - Carl Sagan - David Gerard (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- "In the question of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - GalileoAbraxas (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Evidence against[edit]
FYI there is a mountain of evidence against AGW. Here is a list of 1100 published, peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptics' arguments: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.htmlAbraxas (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Man, between you and Talsley, it's enough to make me wish that tedium was a bannable offense. EVDebs (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- But I'm not trying to bore you. I'm trying to rescue you from the con-men. "the closer you look at the data and alarmists’ presentations, the more fraud you find... For decades, as a professional experimental test engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present data. I became a cynic" - Burt Rutan, aerospace engineerAbraxas (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've picked a couple at random and am going through them now (I refuse to go through all of them) but from the looks of it they're just papers exploring alternative models with varying degrees of success. Not many that I've read through so far seem to be good evidence against AGW. But, you know, cherry pick and misrepresent everything all you like, some people might fall for it.
d hominem
14:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- About half a dozen that I've spotted so far seem to be the same author, Sherwood B. Idso, saying the same point in different journals (of varying quality). Being a single author, he isn't really doing active research and more just proffering opinion on the backs of others, and is the head of the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change", which has a conflict-of-interest given that it's funded partially by oil companies. sshole 14:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- AGW Gish gallop. Without analysis, at that. And lots of character attacks as "rebuttals." Very fun. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 14:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are probably some diamonds in the rough. I'm reading this one now - "we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.", Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf Abraxas (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ooooo, a conspiracy theory. Great use of denialist techniques! sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are probably some diamonds in the rough. I'm reading this one now - "we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.", Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf Abraxas (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- AGW Gish gallop. Without analysis, at that. And lots of character attacks as "rebuttals." Very fun. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 14:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- About half a dozen that I've spotted so far seem to be the same author, Sherwood B. Idso, saying the same point in different journals (of varying quality). Being a single author, he isn't really doing active research and more just proffering opinion on the backs of others, and is the head of the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change", which has a conflict-of-interest given that it's funded partially by oil companies.
- Um... Burt Rutan? I bet you the man knows a lot about weather, but doesn't know much at all about climate. The physics of flight don't change significantly because of a couple degrees difference in atmospheric temperature average; you just get more turbulence and storms to fly around. He wouldn't be my choice for an expert on the subject. EVDebs (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've picked a couple at random and am going through them now (I refuse to go through all of them) but from the looks of it they're just papers exploring alternative models with varying degrees of success. Not many that I've read through so far seem to be good evidence against AGW. But, you know, cherry pick and misrepresent everything all you like, some people might fall for it.
- But I'm not trying to bore you. I'm trying to rescue you from the con-men. "the closer you look at the data and alarmists’ presentations, the more fraud you find... For decades, as a professional experimental test engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present data. I became a cynic" - Burt Rutan, aerospace engineerAbraxas (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Scary graphs[edit]
The graphs of the "climate anomaly" look wild and very scary. Even the name "anomaly" is scary.
Why not show graphs of something that people actual are familiar with, viz. the temperature:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2012/05/Mean-Temp-1.jpg Abraxas (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Scale is inappropriate. Everything looks like a flat line if you zoom out such that the bottom means the entire globe is covered in ice and everyone dies and the top means that the entire globe is a desert and everyone dies. Appropriate scale - http://danbraganca.com/2011/11/30/lexophiles-locale-heated-debate-edition/ Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)