 |
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Two scientists arguing does NOTHING to effect a world wide CONSENSUS of scientists. A CONSENSUS means most. You can choose to believe SOME scientists, or you can choose to believe MOST scientists... You pick SOME. I pick MOST.
excon
How did you arrive at the idea that most scientists believe in CO2 induced climate change? Because someone told you so? I'm not aware anyone took a poll which demonstrated that, quite the contraryQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Most scientists are not involved in the fields which enable them to have an informed opinion. They are like you, they know only what they read and what someone has told them and if, like you, they derived their information from the media or Al Gore, they are ill informed. I was similarly ill informed once, however, I did some research and I found a body of opinion that was contrary to the consensus, if there is such a thing, and that body of opinion is growing and well reasoned and contains many enemient scientists in the fields of Earth sciences.Quote:
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere"..
By the way Ex a consensus is reached when there is no further argument, we have not reached that phase yet.
Considering the consensus opinion is based on demonstrably fraudulent and manipulated data ,I would think at very least real scientists would demand new studies and research to gather uncorrupted data to develop a true scientific hypothesis .
You would think so wouldn't you? But no, we have the rubbish we have been fed. What conclusions you can draw from this I don't know but I think vested interests are involved, I also think there are only a small number contributing to these studies so if they are outed there isn't anyone to take their place.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
I also think there are only a small number contributing to these studies so if they are outed there isn't anyone to take their place.
Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University did a study of Northern Hemisphere Temperatures and drew a graph that looked like a 'hockey stick ' after he conveniently and intentionally eliminated the 'Medeval Warming period' before the 'Little Ice Age' to make it look like temperatures were constant before the Industrial era.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made this fraudulent graph evidence of AGW in their 3rd assessment report. It was then that talk of a scientific consensus first started being used.
Phil Jones, Keith Briffa,Tim Osborn ,and Mike Hulme,of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and other 'scientists ' inside the unit had their emails hacked . Those emails revealed the levels of manipulation that regularly occurred within the field. Climate scientists had colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published,and deleted key raw data.Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme also wrote high-profile scientific papers on climate change that were cited by the IPCC .
The emails revealed that they colluded to ensure the IPCC report included their views and excluded others. Britain's Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia has been the primary source of information for the IPCC ,the group along with Al Gore that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for scaring the world into thinking that the planet is warmer than ever due to human activity. The emails revealed that Jones used "Mike's Nature trick"(the eliminating of warming periods to construct the hockey stick graph)in his 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization,"to hide the decline".
Manipulated data was also used in the IPCC report from Australia's Darwin Zero temperature station .The data was radically altered to show temperature increases. When the raw data was released it showed in fact a decline in temperatures from the station .
Finally ,NASA's Goddard Center has also been complicit in this fraud .Goddard employees are cited in the CRU emails also. NASA sensors in the Arctic ,it was claimed ,revealed that the ice sheet is melting... in fact ,they underestimated the size of the sheet by a mass about the size of the State of California. In fact ,the sheet has been growing after a period of shrinkage and has returned to 1979 levels... the year when consistent measurements began .
Let's assume that there wasn't manipulation. The conclusions reached about temperatures have used so few monitoring stations as to make any real conclusions suspect at best . But ,when these monitoring stations are also shown to be either faulty in application ,or data taken from these stations proven to be manipulated to show a preconceived outcome ,I don't see how there is legitimacy in the claims of the consensus scientists.
They can still have their hypothesis I guess even though the data backing it is suspect.
But that isn't the only issue here. They expect public policy to be created and acted on based on what has turned out to be at best suspect data and at worse manipulated data.
You are correct Tom and if this has been used to obtain money it is Fraud.
I see you omitted to tell us about the temperature readings taken at suspect sites and the deliberate misstatement of data in the UN reports. Ex can have his consensus as long as he is prepared to pay for it, but there is no consensus just chaos.
It's a case of fool me once shame on me fool me twice shame on you. I might have been fooled once but I won't be fooled a second time. This thing is the greatest shell game ever played, no one can find the pea
Hello again,
When you throw trash into the air, it's bad. You don't think so. You're wrong.
excon
You know Ex, you are beginning to sound like a broken record, you remember those?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Cancun has proven to be can'tcun with the result some vague idea to limit deforestation, like Indonesia and Brazil are going to take any notice, and the usual throw someoneelse's money at it and it will fix it.
The delegates didn't want to know about Kyoto and the idea that emissions should be further limited, so Ex, I guess they don't agree that CO2 is trash, how does that fit in your concensus? Ex, my nation has done its bit and met its target, over to you to demonstrate what your nation has done?
Here is video of Cancun delegates signing a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Guess they want that tequila straight up .
YouTube - UN Climate Kooks: Cripple US economy & ban H2O!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
You are not serious-are you?
A phony petition.
If we can fool people into banning water then we can fool them into the destruction of our economy?
A fallacy of composition here. What is true for a particular group of conservationists must be true of all conservationists.
Regards
Tut
No I'm not serious . I just thought that farce was the perfect ending to a farcical conference.
You would think that a delegate for the 'concensus science' would at least know that dihydrogen monoxide is water. Then again ;perhaps they realize that water vapor and not C02 is the biggest green house gas in the atmosphere, and really are considering draconian restrictions .
Tom you know the real solution is to stop all human activity, why shouldn't the trogladites of the environmental lobby be on board with this?
It is a wonder Ex and his consensus aren't protesting water vapour at the gates of the power stations, after all it is dumping garbage in the atmosphere. I wonder when he will realise the monocarbon dioxide he breathes out is polluting the atmosphere and do the honorable thing.
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, no I wouldn't think that because 'consensus science' is made up of scientists. Based on what I saw on U tube these people are laypersons not scientists. You can be an outside observer, and be in agreement with the consensus, but unless you are a scientist you are not part of the consensus. I am sure that any physicist would understand what dihydrogen monoxide is and would not be implementing any recommendations based on the fact that it is in abundance in the atmosphere.
The petition was a political stunt and not surprisingly it got a political response.
Regards
Tut
Hi clete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Ex seems to be in agreement with the consensus but he is not part of the consensus. In my view only scientists can actually be part of the consensus. How many scientists are calling for a stop to all human activity? Tom and yourself are using 'consensus' as some type of blanket ascription.
Regards
Tut
You miss the point Tut, Ex thinks there is a consensus, and Tom and I disagee with him, that is, we don't think there is a consensus. Ex is one of those who think the debate is settled. The climate debate is very complex and Ex has over simplified to focus on CO2 as pollution. He has also mixed up the arguments about peak oil and emissions. I am of the view that climate science as it is presented to us is pseudo science. It ignores a great deal of data and focuses on short term trends.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Hi clete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
In an odd sort of way the debate is settled, but that is the problem with science in the 21 st century.
Pseudo science implies there must be a 'real' science. Unfortunately this is not the case. As it stands at the moment, my contention is that science falls into two categories. Realist and anti-realist camps. Among other things anti- realists would claim that a scientific theory is only valuable if it is able to make accurate predictions. In this respect they would say that climate science fails. I would also say it fails regardless of whether the figures are fudged or not. Anti- realists seem to be the skeptics looking after this area.
The other 'camp' would be called 'the realists'. The would probably argue that it doesn't matter if we have failed to make any accurate predictions. Many things in regard to climate change have not been observed, but they would probably argue that this doesn't make our theories wrong. I see them as a bit like ,'it will rain theorists'. It hasn't rained, but one day it will.
It seems to me we have pet theories and we don't want to give them up. It also seems to be a part of 21 century thinking to hang on to these theories. Scientists seems to be no different; this is the way most people are. I think it explains,' the consensus' point of view every nicely.
It might be better if the skeptical point of view were the consensus, but this is not the case. This is how we think in a global society. So yes, there is a consensus.
Just my opinion
Tut
They were delegates to a climate conference .If they weren't scientists they were at very minimum relying on the 'settled science ' as a rational for making policy that will impact us all. If policy is made based on bad science then it probably by extension is bad policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
That would be the obvious solution...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hello, science deniers:
Water is not poisonous... Most people drink it and don't die. But when taken in excess, it DOES kill.
To argue that since we exhale CO2, it CAN'T be poisonous, even if we put an excessive amount of it into the air, is... well, it's... nonsensical (which is the kindest word I could use).
excon
I've never said too much CO2 isn't bad, just wondering if those the most concerned about it are willing to lead by example and stop breathing.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:25 AM. |