[TUT317]

why do we have to prove the negative. simple observation tells us that CO2 isn't the only factor

Hi Clete.

Normally not. The burden of proof usually resides with the person(s) making the claim.

Under some limited circumstances it is possible to go some way to proving a negative though a null-hypothesis. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

This relates to Tom's post whereby the cites; Canadian Standing Committee on Energy. From what I have read it seems as though these scientists are claiming there are no unknown process at work causing climate change (notably CO2). They seem to be claiming that climate change can be explained in terms of natural climatic processes.

In order to prove a negative you would need to look at all of the available data ( including proxy data) and detect some type of trend towards higher temperatures as time goes on. If no such trend can be discovered then you would probably say that increased amounts of Co2 plays no part in climate change or global warming.

The weakness of this position is that we cannot claim this with any significant degree of certainty.

Tut

[paraclete]

The weakness of this position is that we cannot claim this with any significant degree of certainty.

Tut

The weakness is Tut that claims are being made that CO2 is affecting climate with statistics that represent a very small sample and an impossibally short observation period. Someone has made a connection between CO2 and temperature observations without examining the available data from other sources. What we actually have is not the result of scientific observation but the results of modelling with insufficient variables. Someone observed in a laboratory that CO2 could reflect heat and drew some linear extrapolations from their observations. What this meant was that further research might be warranted, not that we had certainty about any outcome

[tomder55]

Unless that outcome verifies a preconceived conclusion. Then the data can be manipulated... peaks and valleys "hid" from a linear graph... viola! It verifies their hypothesis enough for the political class to take the ball and run with it. The "science is settled " .

This is what the IPCC said based on the conclusions of the lead AGW scientists (mostly those involved in the Climategate emails )

the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change


This is what the Goracle wrote in 'An Inconvenient Truth'
Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making.

That fear mongering film was released in 2006 . That means we are 4 years away from his apocalypse .
Pure nonsense!
Yet ,based on the word of these scientists with their less than convincing conclusion ; politicicians have invested $billions of dollars + in mitigation measures.
As with the case of the Goracle ,they have personally profitted greatly from their steering public policy in that direction.

[speechlesstx]

As with the case of the Goracle ,they have personally profitted greatly from their steering public policy in that direction.

And this social engineering has wasted how many billions of taxpayer dollars on Solyndra, Fisker Automotive (to build electric cars in Finland), millions in subsidies for people who average $175k income to buy Chevy Volts - 8000 of which are being recalled for being a fire hazard - and a purchase of 450,000 gallons of biofuel for Navy jets at 9 times the cost of the usual fuel from a company that was given $21.7 million in stimulus funds to build the refinery.

[TUT317]

The weakness is Tut that claims are being made that CO2 is affecting climate with statistics that represent a very small sample and an impossibally short observation period. Someone has made a connection between CO2 and temperature observations without examining the available data from other sources. What we actually have is not the result of scientific observation but the results of modelling with insufficient variables. Someone observed in a laboratory that CO2 could reflect heat and drew some linear extrapolations from their observations. What this meant was that further research might be warranted, not that we had certainity about any outcome

Hi Clete,

A null-hypothesis is always very difficult to prove in a non-controlled environment. It is less complicated and a lot easier to go the other way.

It doesn't really matter where a hypothesis comes from. All that matters is that it is testable. As you point out the tests at this stage and not really conclusive. Observations and analysis will probably continue to expand because there is a hope of finding ,'the smoking gun of climate change'. In the case of climate it is just easier for science to proceed in that direction. Well, that's the way it seems to me.

Tut

[TUT317]

unless that outcome verifies a preconceived conclusion. Then the data can be manipulated .....peaks and valleys "hid" from a linear graph .....viola !! It verifies their hypothesis enough for the political class to take the ball and run with it. The "science is settled " .

This is what the IPCC said based on the conclusions of the lead AGW scientists (mostly those involved in the Climategate emails )

the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change


This is what the Goracle wrote in 'An Inconvenient Truth'
Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making.

That fear mongering film was released in 2006 . That means we are 4 years away from his apocalypse .
Pure nonsense!
Yet ,based on the word of these scientists with their less than convincing conclusion ; politicicians have invested $billions of dollars + in mitigation measures.
As with the case of the Goracle ,they have personally profitted greatly from their steering public policy in that direction.

Hi Tom,

So are we to conclude that the Goracle was privy to what was happening at the IPCC?


Tut

[tomder55]

He in many ways has been steering this whole thing.

He created Generation Investment Management LLP(GIM) which among other things purchases carbon credits with client's money.

In the US it trades carbon credits at Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) . One of CCX co-founders is Maurice Strong​, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who has helped steer international policy for the environmentalist movement.One of his former job was “senior advisor” to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at the time of the IPCC . Beginning to see the web ? Strong is a close personal friend of Gore.

The membership of CCX is currently voluntary (for now) . If the day ever comes when government regulations require CO2 emitters(almost everyone )to participate in cap and trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to profit from it.
This day is approaching faster than anyone thinks . Our Supreme Court, in their infinite unerring wisdom ,has decreed Carbon Dioxide a "pollutant " that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate. President Obama has by executive decree given the EPA the latitude to act against carbon emitters.

I can assure you the web is much more complex than what I have outlined .Strong was also at one time “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn .
The World Bank joined CCX and is purchasing carbon credits with the contributions from the world's nations (aka our tax dollars) . It has also set up a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits around the world .

So you have politicians around the world personally profitting based on what is at best a questionable premise... one based on fraudulent research by lead scientists who's motivations themselves are open to question... and have shown a willingness to manipulate data to support this predetermined conclusion. A conclusion that many people ,who cut their paychecks, have a personal stake in the outcome.

[paraclete]

So you have politicians around the world personally profitting based on what is at best a questionable premise.

So politics as usual then, led by a man who would be king or was it president?

[speechlesstx]

This just in...

Carbon emissions 'will defer Ice Age'

I still say there isn't just a whole lot we can do to alter our climate one way or the other. And please, don't tell me I love dirty air.

[paraclete]

So we are doomed if we do and doomed if we don't, a true doomsday scenario. I prefer to be warm than cold

[speechlesstx]

Ditto that.