• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

It would be pretty worrying that the name of the organization was that on-the-nose.
 
Visage said:
Indeed. You've got 3% of scientists, for a start. And UKIP.
Click to expand...

Care to read this, taken from comments in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/15/john-kerry-secretary-of-mis-state/:
In 2013, a paper by Cook et al. published in Environmental Research Letters claimed their review of the abstracts of peer-reviewed papers from 1991 to 2011 found 97 percent of those that stated a position on man-made global warming supported the alarmist view. This study was quickly debunked by a paper by Legates et al. published in Science & Education. Legates et al. found “just 0.03 percent endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” They found “only 41 papers – 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent – had been found to endorse the standard or quantitative hypothesis.” Once again, many scientists whose work questions the consensus protested that their work had been misrepresented.

In striking contrast to these studies, which try but fail to find a consensus in support of the claim that man-made global warming is a serious problem, many authors and surveys have found disagreement and even a majority of scientists oppose the alleged consensus. Surveys by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have found that most scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models and do not believe key climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are adequately understood to predict future climate changes.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Of the various petitions circulated for signatures by scientists on the global warming issue, the one that has garnered by far the most signatures – more than 31,000 names – says:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
Click to expand...
 
 
You just don't understand that it isn't ethical to take other people's results and modify them without peer review, do you?
 
Doctor Doog said:
You just don't understand that it isn't ethical to take other people's results and modify them without peer review, do you?
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with valid interpretation of the data that might disagree with the establishment. You are just appealing to a false authority.
 
The false authority of academic review? Nonsense.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
In any case there is no suggestion that the work of Lewis, Curry or Stevens hasn't been properly scrutinised. It is the non-conformity of their view that riles.
Click to expand...

No, what riles is the fact that their "evidence" is presented in blog posts. You'd be laughed out of any institution of higher learning if you cited such a source with a view toward scientific discussion.
 
Alan USA said:
No, what riles is the fact that their "evidence" is presented in blog posts. You'd be laughed out of any institution of higher learning if you cited such a source with a view toward scientific discussion.
Click to expand...

I think you should check their CVs (resume as you call them).
Academics often struggle in industry in my experience, a different world.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I think you should check their CVs (resume as you call them).
Academics often struggle in industry in my experience, a different world.
Click to expand...

We call them both.

Past experience is not indicative of continued excellence. If it was we'd all still worship at the house of Freud.
 
Skeptics are also disproportionately from irrelevant disciplines such as geology (home of the fossil fuel industry) and meteorology (close enough to climate to fool the uneducated). Actual climatologists who doubt the reality of AGW are as rare as rocking horse shit.
 
Alan USA said:
We call them both.

Past experience is not indicative of continued excellence. If it was we'd all still worship at the house of Freud.
Click to expand...

Given that I develop technology I think you can take my forward thinking as read.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Academics often struggle in industry in my experience, a different world.
Click to expand...

There you go again, making assumptions based on a small sample size. Physics is physics wherever it is applied, a concept you seem to struggle with.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Given that I develop technology I think you can take my forward thinking as read.
Click to expand...

Er, what?

In any case my point is that just because you've developed a successful product in the past, it doesn't guarantee that your future products will be of equal worth.

All products and all science must be judged on its merits individual of the author's prior work.

Visage said:
Skeptics are also disproportionately from irrelevant disciplines such as geology (home of the fossil fuel industry) and meteorology (close enough to climate to fool the uneducated). Actual climatologists who doubt the reality of AGW are as rare as rocking horse $#@!.
Click to expand...

Yeah but supporters come from sociology which we all know is the Dean Saunders of the sciences.
 
Doctor Doog said:
There you go again, making assumptions based on a small sample size. Physics is physics wherever it is applied, a concept you seem to struggle with.
Click to expand...

What's your profession/area of expertise, Doog? I've been curious for some time.
 
Visage said:
Skeptics are also disproportionately from irrelevant disciplines such as geology (home of the fossil fuel industry) and meteorology (close enough to climate to fool the uneducated). Actual climatologists who doubt the reality of AGW are as rare as rocking horse shit.
Click to expand...

The usual dumb arguement that a self appointed clique is always right. If your physics is wrong it remains so. 97% my arse...
 
Self appointed by dint of actually studying the subject at hand with a track record of published, peer reviewed articles.

Compared with your chosen demagogues, who are appointed on the basis of a) having a 25 quid a year blog site and b) presenting opinions that match your own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top