AGW Theory - Discussion

?

That's how it works... someone will say something big, and then the community tries to reproduce the results and critically analyze the experimental design to see if it's legit. I'm not bullshitting you

I'm well aware that is how science works. It is hilarious that you believe that is how climate science works. Have you not read the past 27 pages objectively at all?

Do you know why there are hundreds of studies examining the effects of man on climate?

What's the difference between "science" and "climate science"? Is climate science not a science? Is there some reason to treat it separately?

EDIT: I'm guessing it has to do with the politics and culture of climate science, but I'm just asking

Is your understanding of climate science derived from this thread?

Na, I just try to understand leftists here.

That's incredibly dishonest. You have never once tried to understand anyone you disagree with. You listen just long enough to formulate a jab.

this doesn't have to be a left v right argument, why can't we just discuss evidence

I get that you can't escape politics, but you don't have to base the conversation on politics

Wow! Read back [b]One[/b] page!

This is what I don't understand. The first conversation I have with you since I've been back and we totally agreed with one another.

The Next Page! You call me dishonest because I jab at people that disagree with me, seriously!

News Flash dude! You don't even listen at all, you just sit back and wait to take a jab!

Every response you've made to Dabackpack has been of that nature. I couldn't care less if you agree or disagree with me, but I always read a person's post with the same objectivity regardless of who it is.

Really dude this has been covered, back read.



Do you realize the article I posted was about the US Ceding sovereignty to U.N. bureaucracy.

That's not how that works, at least not entirely.

A scientist has an idea or a thought on how something is or isn't, they then design an experiment to test that idea or otherwise gather and test data. Once they are fairly positive about their work, they release it for others to check. Others check it and attempt to reproduce it, if they get different results then everything stacks checking their numbers to see where the differences are. The important part is that you scrutinize, check and recheck and everyone must accept the fact that no theory is complete, the universe always has another curve ball to throw at us. People can always be wrong.

Above you attempted to defend "but it's a consensus!!!", which is just your politics jumping ahead of your brain. Multiple people agreeing on something does not make it correct, multiple people disagreeing does not make it incorrect. You can't argue light into traveling faster or slower in a vacuum. Reality always trumps theory, unless your Soviet.

Anyhow there is a metric ***ton of information that casts doubt on the core of AGW theory, which is a positive feedback look involving CO2 and H2O. The mathematical relationship between the two is invented, as that number "just works" for the period between 1920 and 1990, though it fails at all other time periods both before and after. That number hasn't been experimentally demonstrated, it's just take as faith. The circular argument boils down to this

A: If man made CO2 is causing a warming effect, the relationship must be Y
B: Assuming the relationship is Y, then we can extrapolate to have effect Z
C: Since relationship Y fits with effect Z, it must therefor be true.

Then people start going around pretending those assumptions are true because it's politically expedient to do so. As a theory it's fine, we can test it and tease out why the numbers don't line up with data points outside the 20th century. There is plenty of documented information that can explain the 20th century temperature increase without resorting to a theoretical coefficient. So it's not the only theory, but due to politicians taking it and using it as a platform to convince people to give them more power, now we'ev gotten a situation where the results of the study / experiment are given prior to the study / experimenting being done. Essentially the "science" is just going through the motions as any non-conforming results will be discarded.

This is a blog. The reason it isn't being reported is because it doesn't state any facts. WND is not a source, its a blog site, no different than Lordgrim's posts.

Every response you've made to Dabackpack has been of that nature. I couldn't care less if you agree or disagree with me.

The fact that Dabackpack is simply repeating the same old retoric that every other climate beliver has spouted the past 27 pages kinda puts me into the "jabby" mood.


Who is being incredibly dishonest now...

The draft text has been available on the Internet since Oct. 20 for all to see.

It doesn't matter how many pages the thread is. The idea that science follows a methodology has never once been disproved. No amount of blogs and "nuh-uh"s is going to change that, either.

Everything puts you into jabby mode. Hence the repeated suspensions. And you're off to another great start.

Climate science is a soft science like anthropology or psychology. It's entirely made up of running statistical models on proxy data then teasing out results. They don't do empirical experiments. All those "studies" are just more models run on the exact data sets, and thus the same results are expected.

This is what I mean by there is no such thing as "consensus". One person, ten people or one hundred people, if they all run the same math on the same data, they will all get the same results. Sheer number of people agreeing with you does not strengthen the validity of an argument, otherwise mob mentality would always win.

The whole left vs right thing here is because a few decades ago the progressives decided that "Global Warming" was a great excuse to take control over the economies of the world. Stop for a second and try to name one facet of our civilization that doesn't involved "carbon". Now if we were to grant an entity broad ranging powers to regulate "carbon", how could that entity effect those same economies? How much tax burden could they shift, how much power would they have over the distribution of that burden? Who could they penalize, who could they reward, and to what effect could they impose their own agenda on other agencies and business's? The conservatives just saw this and thought "holy ***we can't let them kill us that way" and responded in kind. The political framework goes pretty deep here, and absolutely none of it is good for the average person.

Anyhow I don't have a political ideology, I'm a pragmatist. Right now there is sufficient evidence that AGW theory isn't strong enough to support global economic changes that grant large powers to concentrated political entities. They need to do a lot more work, without political bias.

1.) Correct, but I was paraphrasing -- the process by which results are (more or less) confirmed, qualified, or denied can take several years -- but the "creation of knowledge" is a rigorous, collaborative effort.

2.) This is also correct --- the fact that the majority of scientists think it's true doesn't mean it's true. It only -suggests- that a certain set of findings is true. Plenty of cases where previously established beliefs have been turned on their heads (though I feel these are mostly in the social sciences). That said, looking at the sheer volume of research on the topic, I'm more inclined to believe in the correlation.

3.) So it seems like you're saying that the proposed model is taken as true before it's been experimentally tested? Looking at the politics, that's putting the cart before the horse. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the political initiatives are baseless or even useless.

If what you say about the "metric ***ton" of conflicting data is true, why do you suppose that the scientific community is rejecting it? Is it even being rejected? It's important to dissect policy from actual research. I understand that the political field may be accepting this way too fast, but what about the scientific community?

Just to be clear, there are plenty of conservatives who acknowledge humans being a key player in contributing to climate change. They include researchers, engineers, teachers, etc, ya know, members of the scientific community. There is a serious problem in that some of the most vocal conservatives are against it, and often view it as a "liberal scheme".

speak of the devil
A metric ***ton, you say! You don't happen to have at least one peer-reviewed scholarly article that can substantiate this, do you?

So?
"Buried on page 19 of the 34-page document is the critical text – still heavily bracketed with text that hasn’t been completely resolved and agreed upon. "
Its a blog analysis. Lordgrim could have written it. No credibility whatsoever. Get back to us when the agreement has been reached, then people will be reporting it.

Ok this is what I was looking for

EDIT: Models from soft sciences have, in the past, led to policy changes -- just look at sociology/criminology and economics. That's not to justify what is happening here, but it's a fact. In this regard, the climate change thing isn't new.

The way that I feel that climate change is different is that it's rooted in the natural sciences instead of the social sciences. We can demonstrably prove certain relationships in nature. The models you suggest are rooted in science. The models themselves might not be correct, for sure. But I feel like climate change studies are "more than just a model".

EDIT EDIT: I have a hard time believing that nobody's shown or refuted the existence of these relationships. I might be wrong, though.

While everybody is occupied with the politics of it, on this side of the world, things are happenning on a scale that is catastrophic.

http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/10/indonesia%E2%80%99s-fire-outbreaks-producing-more-daily-emissions-entire-us-economy


Img from : http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=86847

Air quality has gone from bad to serious health threat on several days in neighbour countries such as where I am located (Singapore) ...School are closing down and people are told to stay indoors because the Air is almost unbreathable. This ***happens every year for a month or two, and its getting worse each year. Pollution Standard Index ratings are going off the scale, literally. the scale usually goes to 500, (more than 100 is unhealthy, in singapore it reached the 440 mark few days ago) and has been revised to account for higher score cause some places in Indonesia the PSI reached values of 2k+...

It's all good to promote renewable energies, but fact remains that what is burning indonesia right now, the lack of control over palm oil production conditions, is outclassing a lot of Global Warming offenders.

But this is all happenning on the other side of the world for USA... I wonder how the US would react about the issue if it was mexico that was burning like that and creating 2-3 months long of haze where the air is un breathable at worse, and making people sick at best....

Oh you know, we would probably start by putting the fires out....Kidding! No really, the US combats fires every single year, and we don't let our citizens just burn stuff and rely on rain to extinguish them.

It would be more correct to say that climate science (climatology) is a branch of earth science. There are definitely empirical experiments, the models aren't just made up out of nowhere.

The idea that climate science does not follow the methodology's of real science has been proven several times in the past 27 pages.


Yea, people calling me incredibly dishonest tends to get me into positions where certain mods take sides. It always starts with you or one of your leftist buddy's jabbing at me. Then ya'll get all sad and report button happy when I start jabbing back.

Technically, the indonesia fires are not caused by citizens, but by foreign companies as its the cheaper method for the palm oil farming... One of the biggest buyers is Target, a USA company so...... I guess as long as its not in your backyard, lol.. ;)

They do try to extinguish it, but this year they lost control and since indonesia as reluctantly accepted international help, massive water bombing is going on but they still can't extinguish it given the massive scale of it...



They are now saying we'll have to wait for the rainy season to clear it... :/

Didn't take long for altima to play the victim card, lol.

Where are you getting the idea that climatology isn't real science? Also feel free to point out anywhere in the 27 pages where someone proved it.

This is some depressing stuff. This kind of mass deforestation is also gonna leave those places significantly more vulnerable to storms.

Was just waiting for the you got banned card to show itself.
It gets followed by the victim card, which in turn gets followed by the hahavictim card. Then I play my 2 black jacks, Bam. Yoker 4 points.

So um, moving on since no one cares?

1st page actually.