# Why 2014 Wasn't the Hottest Year on Record, and How we Knew Before 2015



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

Why 2014 Won

In the article, Dr. Roy Spencer talks about why, even in 2014, he knew 2014 couldn't be the hottest year on record.

The clearest point is that all surface temperature data is flawed to some extent due largely to a lack of consistency in monitoring devices globally, as well as monitoring methods. Other factors, such as UHI (urban heat island effect) have also skewered the results to an extent.

I can't really illustrate his point as well, so be sure to read the article if you're interested.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 29, 2015)

Here's a funny article about a skeptic deciding on the best data to disprove warming. 

Climate researcher wins wager with climate sceptic



> Late 2009, in the run-up to the international climate conference in Copenhagen, PBL climate researcher Bart Strengers had an online discussion with *climate sceptic Hans Labohm* on the website of the Dutch news station NOS (in Dutch). This discussion, which was later also published as a PBL report, ended in a wager. Strengers wagered that the mean global temperature over the 2010&#8211;2014 period would be higher than the mean over 2000 to 2009. *Hans Labohm believed there would be no warming and perhaps even a cooling*; for example due to reduced solar activity.
> 
> *At the request of Labohm, it was decided to use the UAH satellite temperature data set on the lower troposphere (TLT) (roughly the lowest 5 km of the atmosphere).* These data sets are compiled by the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Satellites are used to measure radiation in the atmosphere, after which the temperature of the various layers of the atmosphere is derived using a complex algorithm.
> 
> According to the UAH today, temperatures appear to have been an average 0.1 °C warmer over the past five years than over the 10 years before that. Thus, Strengers has won the wager. The stakes: a good bottle of wine.


So, the skeptic chose what said skeptic believes to be the most accurate data choice ahead of time, and lost the bet. 

----

canadianguy, I'm assuming that you have rational reasons for believing your particular expert, instead of the scientific consensus from the majority of climate scientists, just as I have rational reasons.

And if one's reasons are rational, then one can think of possible reasons to change one's mind. 

If I had to decide that the majority of those climate scientists were wrong, what evidence would I need? 

Among other things, I would need good evidence that the process used by all the independent labs to measure CO2 levels in ice core samples had been in error, and that there was an improved process which gave significantly different numbers which was independently replicated and verified by a consensus of independent researchers. That would cast into doubt the support for the huge amount of CO2 being caused by human activity. 

*Assuming that you also have rational reasons for believing that the scientific consensus is wrong, here's my question to you:

What evidence would convince you that your expert is wrong, and that the scientific consensus is correct, regarding global warming? *

(You really set the bar low. A lot of anthropogenic global warming denialists have already moved the goal posts from the claim that global warming isn't happening, and instead are now arguing about the cause. You need to catch up with the cutting edge of denialism, so you don't repeat the parts which evidence has already forced such denialists to concede. That's the kind of thing which makes the more extreme creationists and Intelligent Design advocates so easy to refute.)


----------



## asher (Jan 29, 2015)

[citation needed]

I was somewhat expecting it to basically be a denialist piece with a headline sounding like it wants to be a "gotcha!", but I read it anyway.

But I'm pretty sure that you need should really have good data when you're claiming that all the numbers are skewed. That's a thing you can show. Or at least show some other research on, because surely something so seemingly obvious is known and documented.

But we get one graph.

And then a bunch of bunk about "it's not as bad as they're saying, but anyhow it doesn't matter," which is outright false. So color me more than a little skeptical.

Ed:


----------



## Explorer (Jan 29, 2015)

Asher, I'm really hopeful that we'll get an intelligent and well-reasoned response on what evidence would be sufficient for ThatCanadianGuy. 

It will be so disappointing if it's just universal conspiracy nonsense.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

I didn't read your entire post, because I've read others you've wrote, and they really don't hold any merit to me anymore.

Research the actual consensus, and I'm sure you'd be surprised to find yourself in the minority.

And what proof would I need? I've seen the evidence that CO2 changes global temperature. I'm convinced of that, as I'm sure we all are. I've seen the evidence that climate changes rather frequently, to the point where it has never truly been a constant, and I'm practically certain of that. I've also seen evidence supporting the hypothesis that our involvement in nature will kill us all, as well as the evidence that it won't. The evidence that the human race will come to an end is underwhelming not only to me, but to the vast majority of climate scientists.

TLR?

Is the earth warming up? Probably.
Is the earth going to cool back down? Absolutely.
Is it going to wipe us off of the face of the earth? A heat wave won't. Flooding won't. An ice age might do it though, as we are a weaker species that we used to be.
Am I the crazy one for thinking the earth isn't going to just melt and cause everything that's grown on a planet that's dealt with much bigger problems than us to just vanish? Absofruitley, amigos. I'll just sit here with a banjo, picking the rest of the time the earth has left away while the "sane" people spend billions of your (and my) dollars on things they hope will help a problem we don't actually know exists.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

I honestly welcome you all to research it. I hate seeing politics get in the way of science.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w


----------



## Explorer (Jan 29, 2015)

Actually, I'm asking: *What evidence it would take for you to convince you that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming is correct?*

If your argument is that there is no scientific consensus: *What evidence would it take for you change your mind, and decide that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?*


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

There is no consensus. That's what you don't seem to get. There's no "over 90%" either. Dr. Roy Spencer, the head scientist on the instrumentation used to measure global atmospheric temperature (the stuff that matters) found one of his papers, which claimed CO2 is a greenhouse gas (a scientific fact, only three percent of scientific papers dispute this, which is the three percent that CORRECTLY corresponds to this consensus everyone is claiming) in that jumble of 97%. It's a misrepresentation of the facts, and scientific blasphemy. If you didn't notice, Dr. Roy Spencer and his findings don't correspond with AGW or as I like to call it "The Doomsday Hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming".


----------



## Explorer (Jan 29, 2015)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> *There is no consensus. That's what you don't seem to get. There's no "over 90%" either. *



I get that you're saying there is no scientific consensus.

*What evidence would it take for you change your mind, and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?*


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

Show me actual evidence that water vapour warms up the atmosphere to the extent that it produces more water vapour and heats up the earth, exponentially increasing the greenhouse effect and dooming us all. Don't show me a climate model, show me evidence. Then, will I believe you.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 29, 2015)

You're saying that the only convincing proof for you, about how CO2 released by human activity is causing a global warming, would be proof of a water vapor mechanism?

*sigh*

I'm trying to get at the rational basis (if any) of your denial of AGW. So, let me again start smaller, with what I hope is a rational basis for saying there is no scientific consensus among climate scientists. That seems to be a fairly straightforward claim which you've advanced.
I'm curious as to your claim that there is not scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and agreement by the majority (more than 90%) of climate scientists. 

That's a claim about facts.

And the facts are about what the majority of climate scientists have concluded. 

I'm curious about the rejection of the published statements of those scientists, and their conclusions about AGW, as well as rejection of they themselves affirming that they are part of that consensus. 

*What evidence would it take for you change your mind about what you claim (a lack of scientific consensus among climate scientists), and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?*


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

This is funny now. It's pretty common knowledge that CO2 isn't what's believed to be the actual problem. The climate models predict that the real problem is CO2 driving a heating system that evaporates water (water vapour is, by definition, a greenhouse gas) and heats up the earth more, evaporating more water, so on and so forth. The problem is that the water vapour is forming clouds, which are reflecting the sun's energy back into space, cooling the earth.

If you don't understand the theory, why are you arguing it?


----------



## ferret (Jan 29, 2015)

He's not arguing about the theory. He's arguing what will it take to convince you that there is a consensus?

There's clearly a consensus, even if you believe they're wrong, but you keep saying there isn't a consensus at all.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

ferret said:


> He's not arguing about the theory. He's arguing what will it take to convince you that there is a consensus?
> 
> There's clearly a consensus, even if you believe they're wrong, but you keep saying there isn't a consensus at all.



There is no consensus, a point I already alluded to. The numbers were skewered to falsify a point. In fact, the majority of climate scientists are skeptics.

I also stated exactly what evidence it would take for me to concede my point.

EDIT: And why are we arguing how many people think one way and not the theory? That's rather absurd for a conversation that's supposed to be about science.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 29, 2015)

I understand that you deny there is a consensus. 

*What evidence would it take for you change your mind about what you claim (a lack of scientific consensus among climate scientists), and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?*


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jan 29, 2015)

So what are we calling this now? Still "climate change" or have they gone back to global warming or cooling?


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

Straw man argument. Don't come at me with any more logical fallacies, or I'll go through all of your posts and list them one by one.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> So what are we calling this now? Still "climate change" or have they gone back to global warming or cooling?



It's just climate change.  It's neither inherently bad, or good. It just is. Haha.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 29, 2015)

It's not a logical fallacy. It's about the distinction between dogmatic belief and a conclusion based on evidence. Further evidence allows one to change a conclusion. A dogmatic belief is not open to change. 

You made a claim about facts, specifically, that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. 

If you have a rational reason for concluding so, then that rational reason is based on facts which led you to that conclusion.

If so, then further facts to the contrary would allow you to rationally change your mind. 

So, I'm curious as to whether your claim about the facts is actually based on facts, and thereby capable of changing. 

*What evidence would it take for you change your mind about what you claim (a lack of scientific consensus among climate scientists), and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?*


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 29, 2015)

Another fallacy. This time, a Red Herring, good choice, sir!


----------



## Explorer (Jan 29, 2015)

Hardly a logical fallacy. It's a question I use as a tool to test my own logic: Do I believe this based on facts, or just because it feels right?

If I can't come up with something which would make me change my conclusion, I know the conclusion isn't based on facts.

If someone can't come up with evidence which would make them change their conclusion, that conclusion isn't based on facts.

*What evidence would it take for you change your mind about what you claim (a lack of scientific consensus among climate scientists), and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?*


----------



## celticelk (Jan 29, 2015)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> This is funny now. It's pretty common knowledge that CO2 isn't what's believed to be the actual problem. The climate models predict that the real problem is CO2 driving a heating system that evaporates water (water vapour is, by definition, a greenhouse gas) and heats up the earth more, evaporating more water, so on and so forth. The problem is that the water vapour is forming clouds, which are reflecting the sun's energy back into space, cooling the earth.
> 
> If you don't understand the theory, why are you arguing it?



No: What is the net feedback from clouds?


----------



## celticelk (Jan 29, 2015)

Moreover, concerning Spencer: Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity


----------



## asher (Jan 29, 2015)

About that supposedly non-existent consensus:

The 97 percent: Three key papers quantifying scientific concensus on climate change Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center


----------



## ElRay (Jan 29, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Moreover, concerning Spencer: Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity





Here's the other page that addresses the "temperature readings are inaccurate" myth: Are surface temperature records reliable?

OP is just spewing more denialist tripe. Anything that agrees with his pre-conceived notions is valid, and anything that disagrees is flawed. neener-neener-neener-deny the consensus-neener-neener-neener-deny-deny-deny. Typical cherry-picking, taking things out of context, hypocrisy and arrogance due to ignorance.

One dead give-away is talk about a single year, day, weather event, etc. If you narrow your range down, you'll always be able to find a range that gives the illusion you want. It's the trend that needs to be followed.

​

Even if you allow for measurement error, there's a painfully obvious trend that only irrational deniers can't see:




There are no climate change skeptics, because skeptic requires rational thought, valid data, etc. 99.9999% of the so-called skeptics are just flat-out willfully ignorant deniers. No different than the anti-vaxers, flat-earthers, birthers, Creationists/ID, moon landing deniers, 9/11 was an inside job nuts, etc., etc.

OP, we'll make it easy for you, cite your sources that prove there's no consensus. And I mean real sources, not tin-foil hat, conspiracy theory, religious nut, hard-line GOP, etc. YouTube rants, blogs and gotta-make-me-some-money-vanity-published books -- actual peer reviewed journal articles. Prove that the following organizations don't support anthropogenic climate change:
NASA
NOAA
The Pentagon
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
Australian Institute of Physics
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
European Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
African Academy of Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Science Foundation
InterAcademy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
{{{OK. This is boring now. It's trivially easy to prove that there is a consensus. Any rational thinking adult and many rational thinking children would understand this by now.}}}
and these are some of the ones that don't have anything to bank, existence to depend upon, etc. for anthropogenic climate change to be real. Oh, here's another list of 197 organizations: Office of Planning and Research - List of Organizations



ThatCanadianGuy said:


> I honestly welcome you all to research it. I hate seeing politics get in the way of science.





It's actually trivially simple to see the longer term trend. CO2 levels actually track very well with long term average temperature levels:


and before you pull-out the denier "lag" whine, read this: CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

EDIT: I originally had the graph showing CO2 vs. temperature graph showing how much warmer it was back to the time when all the coal and oil we're burning was plants and the CO2 in the coal and oil hadn't been sequestered yet, but I know the OP would sherry-pick and deconstruct other portions of the graph.

Ray


----------



## Explorer (Jan 29, 2015)

Aw... I went out for a bit with friends, and was hoping that there would be something from Guy to demonstrate that he had a rational reason for his current conclusion.

There's no shame for him to admit that he just believes something because it feels right to him, and that no amount of evidence would convince him otherwise. It's okay to have dogmatic beliefs which are impervious to actual evidence and rational thinking, whether motivated by religion, politics or other emotional factors. 

It's when Guy is making a claim about factual things, and wants his claim to be accepted as equal to rational, falsifiable beliefs, that he goes wrong.

Guy, in case you missed the question on the last page, I'll restate that I am hopeful that your claim about the lack of consensus is actually the result of reason, and not just a dogmatic and unfalsifiable belief. 

That's why I'm asking for a simple answer, assuming that your claim is falsifiable, on how to do so. 

*What evidence would it take for you change your mind about what you claim (a lack of scientific consensus among climate scientists), and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?*

Of course, you can just state that your claim has nothing to do with evidence pro and con. Unfortunately, that would also be an admission that you're not really looking for discussion, but are just looking to express yourself.

In that case, I'm sure that SS.org members would be able to suggest resources for blogging, so that you wouldn't be challenged to defend something which isn't actually based on facts. 

I'm looking forward to the proof of your being rational!


----------



## Explorer (Jan 29, 2015)

(wow, i couldn't find the link to like the post of... El Rayo!)


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 30, 2015)

Even your own listed source (why you listed two points from the same source and believed them to be true simply because they agreed with each other, I'll never know) agrees that we have no certain ideas about what clouds do to heating (although none of the predictions by people claiming the earth is significantly warming came true, showing their climate models are inaccurate), not to mention your second article is basically stating "his climate model isn't as good as ours" when his has shown more accurate heating data.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 30, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Aw... I went out for a bit with friends, and was hoping that there would be something from Guy to demonstrate that he had a rational reason for his current conclusion.
> 
> There's no shame for him to admit that he just believes something because it feels right to him, and that no amount of evidence would convince him otherwise. It's okay to have dogmatic beliefs which are impervious to actual evidence and rational thinking, whether motivated by religion, politics or other emotional factors.
> 
> ...



I'm trying to be rational, but it's like trying to convince a five year old that the news isn't evidence that Santa Clause isn't real. It's terrifying how much misinformation is being spread while the media pushes everything else under the rug.

Explorer, I get that you have a vested interest in your political beliefs. Cool, I think everyone does. But misrepresenting numbers to claim a consensus to show your confirmation bias isn't cool either.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Jan 30, 2015)

Wow. It's honestly horrifying how many of you agree that the science is wrong.


----------



## Danukenator (Jan 30, 2015)

Why should I believe that over this: 

http://www.wijstoppensteenkool.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/20150116_Temperature2014james-hansen.pdf

So, I'm currently studying climatology at university. Why does it matter that the EXACT effects of clouds are not understood?

Also statements like this are hard to follow:



> In the meantime, the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case.



How was the data massaged? Was it manipulated to adjust for a known trend? Did someone just add +1 degree C and call it a day? Without context that's just a meaningless, scary statement.



> Its the amount of temperature rise that matters. And for a planet where all forms of life experience much wider swings in temperature than global warming is producing, which might be 1 deg. C so far, those life forms  including the ones who vote  really dont care that much.



What? 

There is plenty of evidence that links population decline to rising temperatures. In the Australian tropical forests, modeling suggests that a change will produce 1 extinction out of the 65 modeled and reduce the biodiversity significantly as populations decline [1]. Climate change has reduced the area of environments critical to sustain various species. 67% of the harlequin frogs, an amphibian genus, have disappeared in the past 30 years throughout South and Central America [2]. Thomas et al. (2004) modeled the expected number extinctions given a range climate predictions for 2050 by estimating the total number of extinctions that will occur within sample regions. The computer model predicted a ~18% of species included win the study would become extinct using a low-end prediction of future climate change. The high-end predictions, the worst-case scenario for climate predictions, saw ~35% of the included species becoming extinct. This paper doesn't even have the most recent (worse) predictions as it is from 2004.


1. Climate change in Australian tropical rainforests: an impending environmental catastrophe
2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html
3. JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 30, 2015)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> Wow. It's honestly horrifying how many of you agree that the science is wrong.



That's an interesting conclusion to draw from this thread, since there seems to be a small mountain of evidence posted from climate scientists in here.


----------



## Danukenator (Jan 30, 2015)

eaeolian said:


> That's an interesting conclusion to draw from this thread, since there seems to be a small mountain of evidence posted from climate scientists in here.



It doesn't even matter. This is why climate scientists can act so frustrated. 

One ....ing joke of a BLOG post comes out and all the skeptics claim it's been debunked. He just asserts you can't use thermometers. Why? WHY? WHYYYYYY?

If I document a range of factors (Elevation, absolute humidity, relative humidity, wind speed) in addition to temperature, how is that useless? Why couldn't it be used? He just says:



> The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data. - See more at: Why 2014 Won



What studies used this data? One, ten, one hundred? Does the ENTIRE IPPC report use them? Yes? No? It's an assertion that is sooooo baseless and yet skeptics eat it up because they lack critical thinking skills. They aren't stupid, they just can't critically think beyond their bias.

EDIT: I'll stop posting because I'm ranting. It's frusturating because people dedicate decades doing the grunt work for studies only to have them dismissed by idiots. These are some of the most honest and hard working people in the world.


----------



## celticelk (Jan 30, 2015)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> Wow. It's honestly horrifying how many of you agree that the science is wrong.



Citation needed.


----------



## celticelk (Jan 30, 2015)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> Even your own listed source (why you listed two points from the same source and believed them to be true simply because they agreed with each other, I'll never know) agrees that we have no certain ideas about what clouds do to heating (although none of the predictions by people claiming the earth is significantly warming came true, showing their climate models are inaccurate), not to mention your second article is basically stating "his climate model isn't as good as ours" when his has shown more accurate heating data.



I listed two articles from the same source because they both deal with the points you're making, and have "basic" versions that don't assume that the reader is well-versed in climate science. Your assertion that Spencer's model shows more accurate heating data (whatever that means, exactly) needs a citation, as does your claim that "none of the predictions by people claiming the earth is significantly warming came true."


----------



## ToS (Jan 30, 2015)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> Wow. It's honestly horrifying how many of you agree that the science is wrong.



Well, so far you have been presented a lot of credible (read: peer-reviewed studies published in relevant journals) evidence that doesn´t support your hypotheses. Yet you arrogantly refute all of this evidence and claim to be the one who´s "right".... that´s not how science work (and btw., science is never wrong - but it can be good or bad; and from all I´ve seen so far, Spencer's science falls mostly in the latter category)


----------



## Explorer (Jan 30, 2015)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> I'm trying to be rational, but it's like trying to convince a five year old that the news isn't evidence that Santa Clause isn't real. It's terrifying how much misinformation is being spread while the media pushes everything else under the rug.
> 
> Explorer, I get that you have a vested interest in your political beliefs. Cool, I think everyone does. But misrepresenting numbers to claim a consensus to show your confirmation bias isn't cool either.



Okay. I originally gave an example of what could make me change me mind about my conclusions on AGW. *You're even trying an accusation against others about being dogmatic instead of rational.

Yet you refuse to even consider and give an example of evidence which could prove your numeric claim wrong.*

So far, you're only showing yourself to be irrational, by not having a conclusion based on, or which can be disproven by, any possible evidence. 

Since you seem to have as shaky a grasp on the definition of dogmatic as you do of a strawman argument, *let me show you what intellectual rigor and openness to evidence looks like, using an example *you* suggested.*

What would it take to convince me that Santa Claus is a real, physical entity, if only for one Christmas Eve? 



For me, strong proof would be that all children in the world would receive the gifts they want on Christmas Eve, with said gifts appearing where they live, regardless of the parent(s)' income level, based on that child's actual naughty/nice level. 

Since especially wanted gifts would suddenly appear regardless of a shortage at stores, even the poorest children would have them.

Such a miraculous occurrence across all nations where children worship the Santa Claus would be a story resulting in international attention.

I'm assuming that you were asking what kind of thing could convince at least one adult to change his current conclusion. That previously absent entity would still have to be explained in terms of the previous decades of failure to bring presents to the children whose parents couldn't afford it, but at least one year had some entity which filled the role. 

See? I have a conclusion (there is no independent entity acting in the role of Santa Claus), based on evidence like: only parents and concerned parties who do what they can with their resources (especially when parents don't have the financial resources like more affluent parents). There's also the evidence that even the most spoiled child who is badly behaved gets far more gifts claimed to be from the Santa entity than a orphan 7-year-old in Brazil or India who is doing all he or she can to keep a younger sibling alive. 

Dude, I came up with evidence which would convince a lot of people, at least for one Christmas Eve, that an independent entity magically acted as Santa Claus.

Fvcking Santa Claus. 

You, on the other hand, can't present anything at all which would convince you that your very specific claim about the numbers could be wrong.

*What evidence would it take for you change your mind about what you claim (a lack of scientific consensus among climate scientists), and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?*


----------



## Explorer (Jan 30, 2015)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> Wow. It's honestly horrifying how many of you agree that the science is wrong.



This from the Guy who can't think of a single way to falsify his conclusions....

So, we can add scientific method to the list, already containing dogmatism and strawman argument, of things which you toss out but don't really understand? 

Good to know!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 30, 2015)

In response to the title alone: We knew before 2015 bc we had to live through 2014 to get to 2015... Duh... And we had a record of all years prior bc we'd already lived through them... Silly title is silly...


----------



## crg123 (Jan 30, 2015)

You know how easy it is to backtrack any one of the websites who push climate change denial back to where the money comes from? 

For instance that link you posted in the O.P. 

*Whats the site:* CFACT: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow 
*Who funds the committee?* Donors Trust, Koch as well as many other conservative private citizens aka "the people who suffer financially from climate change legislation"
*What do we lose by trying to solve the problem in the patterns we're seeing? *Lowering emissions and trying to find alternative energy sources, costing the current energy source provider money (greed and money only on short term gains)
*What do we lose by failing to do anything* Accelerated extinction of animals who can not adapt quick enough, weather patterns that becomes increasingly violent, rising water levels, etc. 


Why would all these scientists waste decades of their life, collecting all this data for no reason? Seems like the people who are interested in funding this anti climate change studies are the one's who will benefit from its delay to be put into legislation. Think about that. We're not going to be able to have a constructive discussion if you refuse to have a spark of doubt in the sources you gain your information from. Follow the money.


----------



## celticelk (Jan 30, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> In response to the title alone: We knew before 2015 bc we had to live through 2014 to get to 2015... Duh... And we had a record of all years prior bc we'd already lived through them... Silly title is silly...



Just because I'm picky: you'd have had to live through 2015 BCE to get to 2014. The numbers increase in both directions from the arbitrary year 0.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 30, 2015)

Ok


----------



## Randy (Jan 30, 2015)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> lots of bullshit



Listen, I don't know you very well (despite you being a member here for 3 years and I don't know if you've just decided to 'open up' on P&CE because Alex turned off neg rep) but the ad hominem attacks on groups of forum members, and posting/bumping topics with deliberately divisive talking points will not be tolerated. 

Before, I let people get away with acting like assholes on this board just because the members had rep as retribution. That no longer being the the case, if I detect anybody on here's a troll, I'm issuing a hefty (to be determined) ban.

You're all on notice.


----------



## asher (Jan 30, 2015)

I bet my blood pressure would be down if that had started happening earlier 

So, do we think he'll respond?


----------



## flint757 (Jan 30, 2015)

I can understand skepticism, but I always find it amusing when somehow every scientist is a conspirator while those funded with obvious vested interests in seeing our current energy structure stay the same are directly funding the denial research. At the very least I'd expect an equal amount of skepticism towards both sources. Of course that doesn't work for most peoples since the majority of denial supporters are simply agreeing with the ideology they already thought was true before they even looked into the research. 

It's all so similar to when people bite really hard into major conspiracy theories. The news, the government, construction workers, people on site, executives, whatever are all in on a global scam yet a blog(s) with either no sources or one or two unverifiable sources (or someone ranting on their death bed) got it right. If someone feels a hefty amount of skepticism towards the supported data they should really hold the same level of skepticism from the other party too (yet somehow it never is). Hell, maybe even more so. The first con could actually be a double cross to get people to bite on the wrong stories just to distract everyone from the real problems.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 30, 2015)

asher said:


> So, do we think he'll respond?



If he responds, it will be either to continue to assert that there is no scientific consensus, or to finally give what would convince him that his conclusion about a lack of scientific consensus is wrong.

He can't talk about how a consensus isn't good evidence without arguing against his own reasoning from a previous conversation.



donray1527 said:


> i havent got a solid answer haha





ThatCanadianGuy said:


> You sure? Generally I consider multiple "yes" responses to be a solid answer.



He's already shown that he recognizes how consensus is indicative of a solid answer. *That's why he has to fall back on saying there is no consensus in the first place.

As to whether or not that rises to Randy's definition of trolling, and will bring down the ban hammer, is a separate question. *

If Guy/Dicky/Devric came to his conclusion based on evidence, and can show that evidence would change his mind, I'm sure that would *not* be trolling. 

Since (according to his user page) Guy/Dicky/Devric has been checking out different topics here on SS.org for a while since his last post, and because I'm confident he won't just forget this topic exists, I am confident that we can draw the tentative conclusion that if he does abandon the topic, he will have done so deliberately.


----------



## ferret (Jan 30, 2015)

Flint, that reminds me of something I was talking to a work buddy about today about conspiracy theory believers. If you really thought, for example, that Obama was imprisoning Republican dissidents as part of his planned dictatorial take over.... I mean, really truly believe it to be happening...

.... would you be posting about it on Facebook about how much you hate him and his policies and plan to resist his take over? 

If I believed such a thing, I'd keep it from myself so the CIA doesn't ship me to one of those black ops prisons.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 30, 2015)

ferret said:


> Flint, that reminds me of something I was talking to a work buddy about today about conspiracy theory believers. If you really thought, for example, that Obama was imprisoning Republican dissidents as part of his planned dictatorial take over.... I mean, really truly believe it to be happening...
> 
> .... would you be posting about it on Facebook about how much you hate him and his policies and plan to resist his take over?
> 
> If I believed such a thing, I'd keep it from myself so the CIA doesn't ship me to one of those black ops prisons.



No doubt. 

Is that really a currently running conspiracy?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 30, 2015)

Dude, you haven't *lived* until you get in with right-wing friends, whether political, religious or a combination of both. 

I'm looking forward to summer barbecue season for just this reason. 

The best part is, if you ask questions and stick to easily verified, supported facts, the more reasonable folks are often grateful that someone pointed out where the crazies really went off the rails. That's a place where they often have given up, but they don't mind when the bag of cats is actually commented on.


----------



## ferret (Jan 30, 2015)

According to my Facebook feed, which has a tendency to lean "Southern" due to my location, yes, very much so, "Obama is a dictator and taking our guns" and related theories are very much alive and well. I have family members that believe, at least on Facebook, that there will be no 2016 election.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 30, 2015)

I've heard some wacky theories and people comparing him to a dictator, but this is the first I've heard about people literally thinking that is the end game (and being completely serious in saying so). 

To actually believe that is to pretend like the last 100 years never happened (historical context is a bitch).


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 30, 2015)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> There is no consensus. That's what you don't seem to get. There's no "over 90%" either. Dr. Roy Spencer, the head scientist on the instrumentation used to measure global atmospheric temperature (the stuff that matters) found one of his papers, which claimed CO2 is a greenhouse gas (a scientific fact, only three percent of scientific papers dispute this, which is the three percent that CORRECTLY corresponds to this consensus everyone is claiming) in that jumble of 97%. It's a misrepresentation of the facts, and scientific blasphemy. If you didn't notice, Dr. Roy Spencer and his findings don't correspond with AGW or as I like to call it "The Doomsday Hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming".




This is a liberal agenda at cross purposes. The increased CO2 emissions are a function of increasing world population. 

God forbid anyone suggest we limit childbirth (like China) in order to control the damage to our environment! Liberals would just love that.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 30, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I'm looking forward to summer barbecue season for just this reason.



Do you carry your smartphone so you can Google things or do you just smirk and tell them to look it up?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 30, 2015)




----------



## Promit (Jan 30, 2015)

I have a rule of thumb. If someone is asked for "evidence" of something - _anything_ - and the response is a YouTube link, then that person can be and likely should be completely ignored as they have no concept of what the word evidence means.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 30, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Do you carry your smartphone so you can Google things or do you just smirk and tell them to look it up?



I don't have a smartphone in the first place. I'm still using an old Nokia 5130. I don't need to be able to access the internet on the go, since I'm pretty good at looking at maps before I go out if I'm unsure.

Why... do *you* not remember relevant facts, and have to look them up in the middle of discussions?

You did provide an example of how insight can be brought to bear on an arguement though.



GoldDragon said:


> This is a liberal agenda at cross purposes. The increased CO2 emissions are a function of increasing world population.
> 
> God forbid anyone suggest we limit childbirth (like China) in order to control the damage to our environment! Liberals would just love that.



Right off the cuff, your underlying assertion ("Liberals are opposed to methods which can limit population growth") seems at odds with current attempts in the United States to prevent people from making reproductive choices, like access to abortion and birth control. 

As far as I'm aware, all those efforts to prevent women from having access to such options are from the conservative side. 

And a Google search wouldn't have given you the insight necessary to say, "What is this stupidity that I'm about to say? Do I really want to look like I don't understand the worlds coming out of my own mouth? Am I really saying that liberals are opposed to birth control? Is it worth going for a zinger if it has a chance of looking stupid?"

Insight. You can't just look it up. 

----

ThatCanadianGuy hasn't come back. Did he really still not come up with something which could make him change his mind? 

That's too bad. I was really rooting for him to have a rational, reasonable conclusion instead of dogmatic talking point. That kind of behavior is just sad.


----------



## crg123 (Jan 30, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> This is a *liberal agenda* at cross purposes. The increased CO2 emissions are a function of increasing world population.
> 
> God forbid anyone suggest we limit childbirth (like China) in order to control the damage to our environment! * Liberals *would just love that.



Hey! I was wondering when you'd show up!  Time to let all us Damn Libertards know what's good. 

Actually they dropped that rule, its an interesting read and I would assume Forbes isn't part of the New World Order misinformation machine (lol): http://www.forbes.com/sites/investo...a-is-finally-abandoning-its-one-child-policy/

#AxeFxIs4Sheep#Ronpaul2016#MainstreamMediasLying

Just teasing of course, its always interesting to hear people with different opinions but seriously can we have a discussion without the name calling?


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 30, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I don't have a smartphone in the first place. I'm still using an old Nokia 5130. I don't need to be able to access the internet on the go, since I'm pretty good at looking at maps before I go out if I'm unsure.
> 
> Why... do *you* not remember relevant facts, and have to look them up in the middle of discussions?
> 
> ...



You're trying to prove your intelligence and the internet is not the place to do that. I think its a good place to banter, to poke and prod. If you want real debate, join a debate club or get a law degree.

I have a Comp Sci degree, with minors in Math and Philosophy. I understand logic and proofs.


----------



## celticelk (Jan 30, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> This is a liberal agenda at cross purposes. The increased CO2 emissions are a function of increasing world population.
> 
> God forbid anyone suggest we limit childbirth (like China) in order to control the damage to our environment! Liberals would just love that.



Reducing the population would certainly be one way to reduce CO2 emissions, at least in the short term. It'd be difficult to make it stick, partly because you'd have to enforce the limit pretty harshly, which is just not a good solution from anybody's perspective, and partly because fewer people means less demand means lower prices for fossil fuels, which is going to tend to *increase* per-capita usage. There are other reasons apart from climate change to support a reduced human population en route to a more sustainable humanity, though I certainly wouldn't advocate a child cap, for reasons of both liberty and efficiency. Given the strong correlation between advanced industrial economies and lower birth rates, improved education and sustainable economic development seem like a much better strategy.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 30, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> You're trying to prove your intelligence and the internet is not the place to do that. I think its a good place to banter, to poke and prod. If you want real debate, join a debate club or get a law degree.
> 
> I have a Comp Sci degree, with minors in Math and Philosophy. I understand logic and proofs.


So... you're backing off of the unsupportable "liberals are against birth control" assertion, right?

Or is that claim off limits to logic and proofs... and disproofs?

I wasn't out to prove my intelligence on that point. I was pointing out that you were attempting to make a dismissive argument about liberals, and had to rely on a fabrication to do so. 

If making an argument based on a fabrication says something about the claimant, I'd be more worried about what that says about you.

Hey, wait a moment... didn't you make arguments which support the claim that Japan has a lower crime rate than the US because Japan has Christian values behind its laws? You never came back to that one. 

Since you wanted us to now about your knowledge of logic and proofs, I am eager to see that knowledge demonstrated, instead of it being a claim which your arguments seem to undermine.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 30, 2015)

crg123 said:


> Actually they dropped that rule, its an interesting read and I would assume Forbes isn't part of the New World Order misinformation machine (lol): Why China Is Finally Abandoning Its One Child Policy - Forbes





celticelk said:


> Reducing the population would certainly be one way to reduce CO2 emissions, at least in the short term. It'd be difficult to make it stick, partly because you'd have to enforce the limit pretty harshly, which is just not a good solution from anybody's perspective, and partly because fewer people means less demand means lower prices for fossil fuels, which is going to tend to *increase* per-capita usage. There are other reasons apart from climate change to support a reduced human population en route to a more sustainable humanity, though I certainly wouldn't advocate a child cap, for reasons of both liberty and efficiency. Given the strong correlation between advanced industrial economies and lower birth rates, improved education and sustainable economic development seem like a much better strategy.



It is indeed amazing how little people know about the world around them. Most civilians still think the existence of a first and third world still exists (as far as what people consider first and third world based on poverty, fertility and health) when in reality the distinction doesn't actually exist anymore. The world has changed into essentially a bell curve as far as health and wealth goes. That's one place where history actually creates misinformation because people don't bother looking at the current state of affairs, instead relying on outdated information that no longer applies.

This website actually does a wonderful breakdown of the world today and even lets you view the world as it progressed using a number of parameter options.

Gapminder World

I found out about this through one of my classes. The guy who made it does TED talks on statistics each year. He's actually very good at making boring data interesting to sit through.

What's really interesting is that, based on the trends, all that is needed to reduce the overall population is to make the world at large a healthier/wealthier place.


----------



## pwsusi (Jan 30, 2015)

I'm not an expert on this subject (actually I'm a computer scientist and don't have time or interest in researching this climate change stuff to the extent that others here have), but all the charts graphs i see showing increase in rising temperatures all seem to start around 1850 (there are a couple earlier in this thread). I take it that's as far back as we have been recording. Interestingly enough didn't the last mini ice age/cooling period end around the same time?
From wikipedia..



> The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850,[



Wouldn't it make sense that if we were coming out out of a cooling period that lasted several hundreds of years that we'd naturally see a warming trend? 


Regardless, arguing over whether or not there is a problem doesn't solve anything. Suppose we are destroying the planet, so what's the proposed solution? There isn't one that wouldn't cripple our economy and that's the real problem. When the technology is there and it's cost effective people will happily move to clean renewable energy; right and left, believers and non-believers of man made climate change. The problem is the technology is not there. So what do we do in the meantime? Force everyone to drive electric cars when we're still burning coal to produce the electricity? Are we really fixing anything or just pushing an agenda on people, doing what feels good and telling ourselves we are fixing the problem when we have no data to show that we are having any impact.

There is all this data analysis flying around here to prove a point about climate change yet i see no one talking about data analysis to quantify what it will take to resolve the problem. How many cars need to come off the roads, how many incandescent light bulbs need to be converted to LED, why isn't all energy being generated from windmills, etc, etc. We are so focused on data to prove climate change yet none of this data is ever mentioned.

So what's the recommended action plan and how are we measuring success? How come politicians on the left are still flying around in private jets if they're so concerned about CO2? Want to convert the nay sayers...stop the intellectual crap and start by practicing what you preach. We are being sold a story about climate change, and whether you think it's true or not, of course we are the ones left holding the bag. We are the ones who have to make the sacrifices, deal with higher energy costs etc...while our hypocritical politicians do nothing to help or lead our way out of the so called problem, make no sacrifices, and pretend to care. In the meantime we get the shaft.

Just as big oil has a lot to gain by keeping the status quo there are others on the other side that will profit from all the green initiatives. And does one really think oil companies aren't keeping up with the times and investing time and money in alternative energy? If i were a betting man i would bet they are positioning themselves to smoothly transition over to whatever will make them profitable in the future.


----------



## celticelk (Jan 30, 2015)

About the Little Ice Age: What ended the Little Ice Age?


----------



## flint757 (Jan 30, 2015)

Call me crazy, but I'm sure that discussion is in fact being had by people who actually matter on the subject. This entire conversation is quite superficial at the level we are discussing. The only benefit it serves is to inform others about the world around them so they can be better informed voters. 

And the oil companies have tried 'green initiatives' like trying to keep oil/gas in the loop with higher ethanol level gasoline. It just sort of fizzled out of existence (I rarely see it as an option at gas stations where I live) and that was probably for the better. It would have had horrible affects on food prices if it was successful. Currently, oil companies are simply delaying so that they can find a way to profit on the future. They wouldn't want the companies that actually invested the time and energy on alternative energy to make most of the profit. They'll just do what all other mega-corp industries do, buy out or re-brand other peoples ideas.


----------



## Promit (Jan 31, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> You're trying to prove your intelligence and the internet is not the place to do that. I think its a good place to banter, to poke and prod. If you want real debate, join a debate club or get a law degree.
> 
> I have a Comp Sci degree, with minors in Math and Philosophy. I understand logic and proofs.


I have two Comp Sci degrees. Don't attempt to associate my profession with what you're peddling.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 31, 2015)

pwsusi said:


> I'm not an expert on this subject (actually I'm a computer scientist and don't have time or interest in researching this climate change stuff to the extent that others here have), but all the charts graphs i see showing increase in rising temperatures all seem to start around 1850 (there are a couple earlier in this thread). I take it that's as far back as we have been recording. Interestingly enough didn't the last mini ice age/cooling period end around the same time?
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense that if we were coming out out of a cooling period that lasted several hundreds of years that we'd naturally see a warming trend?



Actually, you have an excellent question there buried in that: How can the temperature prior to 1850 be determined? Since there was no directly recorded data by human agency, is there any sort of proxy to provide that data? What physical processes would have retained traces of temperatures prior to that time?

Would there be any sort of record left in ice at the poles?

Any pattern of wood grain growth which has proven consistent with higher and lower temperatures?

What about the growth patterns of coral reefs, or ocean sediments? 

Could cave stalagmites provide such data?

If there are multiple claimed sources of such proxy data, do they correlate with each other?

If there are such sources of proxy data, and that the data produced by the disparate methods, conducted by independent researchers across many disciplines, have been found to interlock and support the same conclusions, would that just be a wild coincidence?

If someone studying coral reef growth and coral fossils said that this pattern of growth would work out to be this many thousands or millions of years, and someone studying ocean sediments said that these patterns indicate this many thousands or millions of years, and the two different methods produced the same high and low temperature data, that would be good evidence that something was driving that convergence.

If you add data from stalagmites to that, and such data also had the same highs and lows, that convergence is made even less likely to be by chance. 

And, if there were such huge convergences across many bodies of scientific research, denialists would have their hands full to come up with a workable theory which better explained that convergence.

I think it would be more likely that they would take the path of the creationists/intelligent design advocates, and try to pick at small parts of the evidence where they could. 

And since they are often working from the same dogmatic, authoritarian knowledge theory as the creationists, they think that disproving one small point would make the whole thing fall down. They don't really understand the scientific method or the process. 

And, like the creationists, they have many different hypotheses which contradict each other, only united in that they are opposed to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. 

And the less intelligent would just repeat what they think will work, even if it's easily disproven, and they don't mind. *That core assertion from the OP, that there is no scientific consensus, led to the OP apparently abandoning the topic because he refused to consider a way that he could be convinced his claim is wrong.* It's like someone wanting to you read the Bible to prove that it's true, and ignore any facts from outside the Bible which contradict it... or even the parts of the Bible which contradict each other. 



> There is all this data analysis flying around here to prove a point about climate change yet i see no one talking about data analysis to quantify what it will take to resolve the problem. ...We are so focused on data to prove climate change yet none of this data is ever mentioned.


That's because the topic, on a forum dedicated to ERGs of all kinds, was started purely to deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. People like that aren't invited to sit at the adult table when serious discussions are held, because they haven't proven themselves mature enough to leave the kids' table. 

But such serious discussion do happen, and occasionally the grownups have to put the kids in their place. 

'I'm not a scientist, either,' president says | TheHill

Obama Strikes First in War of Words with Congress over Global Warming - Scientific American

All this is besides the point of this topic, though. I'm still hoping the OP will come through.

ThatCanadianGuy/Dicky/Devric, I'm still pulling for you answering this question:

*What evidence would it take for you change your mind about what you claim (a lack of scientific consensus among climate scientists), and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?

*Come on, man. If I can come up with a scenario, based on your suggestion, to convince a lot of people that Santa actually exists, you mean you're not smart enough to come up with a scenario which would convince you that there is a scientific consensus of more than 90% of climate scientists about the truth of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? 

*I'm starting to suspect you don't actually base your conclusions and claims on reason and evidence, brother.*


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 31, 2015)

A warmer wetter earth? 
Well if we're not going to install population management programs the world over (real ones that not many will like) then maybe a warmer wetter earth will open up new lands for farming and also help restore many of the world's depleting freshwater stores. ("always look on the bright side of life")

Maybe the whole industrial age is just a product of an alien intervention designed to prolong earth's temporarily habitable surface environment . (for their grand human experiment)


----------



## flint757 (Jan 31, 2015)

There's no need. As nations become more industrialized the fewer kids they have. Here in the US the average is 1-2. That's actually the case in most of the healthy, industrialized nations. There has been a steady trend in most countries towards the same without any measures at all.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 31, 2015)

flint757 said:


> There's no need. As nations become more industrialized the fewer kids they have. Here in the US the average is 1-2. That's actually the case in most of the healthy, industrialized nations. There has been a steady trend in most countries towards the same without any measures at all.



Good , but are nations becoming more industrialized faster than the population is growing? Seems like it's still growing fast.
When I was a kid 30yrs ago they said that China was 1/3 of the pop. and had just reached 1billion. So that's global 3billion.
Now what is it? 6 or 7 billion?  
Houston, me still thinks we have a problem.


edit;
Found this.


----------



## pwsusi (Jan 31, 2015)

> Actually, you have an excellent question there buried in that: How can the temperature prior to 1850 be determined? Since there was no directly recorded data by human agency, is there any sort of proxy to provide that data? What physical processes would have retained traces of temperatures prior to that time?
> 
> Would there be any sort of record left in ice at the poles?
> 
> ...


Right...so in other words there is no data to support it and research has not been done yet we have come to a conclusion. So there is no convergences across many bodies of scientific research because they figure why bother, denialists will find a way to refute their studies; got it. Looking at the last the last 150 years when the earth is billions of years old is like basing my overall health on how i felt yesterday. 



> But such serious discussion do happen, and occasionally the grownups have to put the kids in their place.
> 
> 'I'm not a scientist, either,' president says | TheHill
> 
> Obama Strikes First in War of Words with Congress over Global Warming - Scientific American



Why in every response do you have to make a statement about how you or those who share your position are are smarter than everyone else? Okay, so the president wants a clean power bill..

-What is the cost associated with reducing carbon pollution per mega-watt hour?
- What are specific reduction in sea levels, temperature, etc, etc, that will result from this? Has a cost/benefit analysis been done?
&#8211; Will the utility rates increase as a result be passed on to the consumers?
- What if the States refuse to buy into the plan?
- What economic impact will there be to states whose economy depends upon the coal and the mining industry? How is EPA going to assure the States it would not affect the economy of the respective States?
- Is the federal government providing any funds or subsidy to the States to off-set the cost that the state may incur as result of implementing the plan?
- If it becomes more costly to do business in the U.S. isn't a logical reaction for companies to continue to move overseas? Then we act surprised when US jobs are lost and blame everyone else but not look in the mirror as one of the sources of the problem?

Wouldn't a grown up think through consequences before taking action? We have data to support climate change where's all the data to support this? Seems like we're hearing the whole "it's better than nothing" answer. A grown up does not provide those kinds of answers.

I hope you are equally as interested in finding a solution as you are proving your intelligence to the OP and others who does not believe in man-made climate change.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 31, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> You're trying to prove your intelligence and the internet is not the place to do that. I think its a good place to banter, to poke and prod. If you want real debate, join a debate club or get a law degree.
> 
> I have a Comp Sci degree, with minors in Math and Philosophy. I understand logic and proofs.


You debate hard in every thread I see you in. If you wish to concede, do so w grace, friend.


----------



## celticelk (Jan 31, 2015)

pwsusi said:


> Right...so in other words there is no data to support it and research has not been done yet we have come to a conclusion. So there is no convergences across many bodies of scientific research because they figure why bother, denialists will find a way to refute their studies; got it. Looking at the last the last 150 years when the earth is billions of years old is like basing my overall health on how i felt yesterday.



I'm not sure where you're getting this idea. We may not have thousands or millions of years' worth of records taken by scientists with precision thermometers, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a reasonable idea of what the conditions on Earth have been in the past. Explorer listed a number of ways in which those conditions can be documented using natural proxies; calibrating them against the instrumental record in the years where they overlap enables us to have some confidence in them as primary readouts for earlier periods.

To answer your health analogy: if I've been drinking heavily for a week and my symptoms are consistent with alcohol poisoning, no competent physician is going to demand a comprehensive review of my medical history in order to diagnose the problem and recommend treatment.


----------



## piggins411 (Jan 31, 2015)

pwsusi said:


> Right...so in other words there is no data to support it and research has not been done yet we have come to a conclusion. So there is no convergences across many bodies of scientific research because they figure why bother, denialists will find a way to refute their studies; got it. Looking at the last the last 150 years when the earth is billions of years old is like basing my overall health on how i felt yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The reason we haven't been discussing this is because it was beyond the scope of what we're talking about. What to actually do about climate change is an important (and difficult to answer) question, but people need to actually believe in it before they want to change it.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 31, 2015)

pwsusi said:


> Right...so in other words there is no data to support it and research has not been done yet we have come to a conclusion. So there is no convergences across many bodies of scientific research because they figure why bother, denialists will find a way to refute their studies; got it. Looking at the last the last 150 years when the earth is billions of years old is like basing my overall health on how i felt yesterday.



No. 

There's an expression which I don't often hear anymore: A word to the wise is sufficient. In other words, you only need to hint at something for someone ahead of the curve to understand it.

I was thinking that you would take all those suggestions I was making, and think, wow, those are some really specific examples? Are there known processes which proceed in known manners, and which can be used to determine both duration and temperature? Could Explorer actually be listing those examples? Do those examples, from all those different fields, actually converge in the timing of the different hot and cold periods over the past millenia, or even epochs, so that one could know about the Earth's temperature beyond the minimal period of modern history for which people have recorded temperatures?

And the answer would be, yes, there exist all those regular, predictable processes from many independent fields which allow one to measure time and temperature, and yes, they do converge in temperatures in different periods. 

Just because denialists are currently attempting to deny AGW, evolution, and other fields of science, the grown-ups continue to move forward. 



> Why in every response do you have to make a statement about how you or those who share your position are are smarter than everyone else?



My responses are about how feeling and dogmatism are not reliable methods for making decisions, and fall far short of using evidence and reason. That's been a pretty big theme in this topic, trying to get someone to show that they are making a claim about facts based on reason and evidence. 

Do you come to your conclusions through reason and evidence?

If so, would you think that you were using a superior process to just following dogma and talking points?

I'm just curious as to why you think that dismissing dogma in favor of reason and evidence is a bad thing.



> Wouldn't a grown up think through consequences before taking action? We have data to support climate change where's all the data to support this?



It appears that you're conferring the status of grown-up upon those who haven't mastered the adult ability/skill of using reason and evidence. Would someone who used reason and evidence in a grown-up way be capable of arguing, say, that Obama didn't think that the prevalence of "I'm not a scientist" line is misguided?

Would someone who used reason and evidence in a grown-up way be capable of saying that climate scientists have not reached a scientific consensus, based on all the evidence out there, in word and deed (including published, peer-reviewed data) from those climate scientists?

I don't think that someone who can either ignore all that evidence, or someone who knows the evidence but denies it anyway, is mature enough to be part of the discussion of what to do about the issue. It would be like getting creationists to serve on a board to determine the best scientific consensus on biology and geology, in order to determine how best to teach science to kids. 

I'm not sure, but it seems like you're upset that I'm asking the OP questions about his claim about facts, instead of starting a different topic to talk about solutions. If the latter... what are *you* waiting for? 

Me? I think the biggest impediment to focusing energy and resources on solutions and mitigation is idiots who are deliberately obstructing the conversation. Since this board doesn't really wield any power, and is just a discussion board, I think that my energy is actually being well used in both trying to get a rational answer from ThatCanadianGuy, and in pointing out ThatCanadianGuy's reasons for his conclusions to others. That kind of discussion can help others do the same, getting more cranks the level of respect for their claims about facts which those claims deserve.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 31, 2015)

Explorer,
I think you are ready to take it to the "next level".

Why waste precious time with words when you can decompose sentences into logical expressions?

These techniques were covered in Comp Sci classes, advanced math, and also in philosophy/law. These take most people at least a semester to master but you seem to be chomping at the bit and seem hungry to learn how its really done.

Rules of Inference

Rules of Inference and Logic Proofs

I don't want to hear back from you before you have studied and learned how to apply these techniques to your arguments.


----------



## Promit (Jan 31, 2015)

I think GoldDragon must be the only person in his family who went to college or something. "I went to college and successfully attended Formal Logic 1! Bow before my ability to link the web pages that taught me to pass the final! I spent an _entire semester_ becoming a master of logic!"

News flash: the rest of us sat through those lectures too. Nobody fking cares about your math minor (which is essentially free with a CS degree) or your ability to regurgitate freshman prerequisite material. Maybe those work as intimidation techniques in whatever backwater you came out of, but here it's just pathetic watching you try to show off.

So I repeat: stop trying to associate computer science with the garbage you're peddling. Bring it up the next time we want to talk about Turing completeness, complexity classes, or security proofs. Or maybe the debate club will let you hang out post-graduation and you can impress all the students there.


----------



## pink freud (Jan 31, 2015)

Guys, quit throwing Ad Homs around.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 31, 2015)

Promit said:


> Maybe those work as intimidation techniques in whatever backwater you came out of, but here it's just pathetic watching you try to show off.



I think Explorer has a track record of trying to be the person you describe. I mentioned my credientials because he accused me and some others of faulty logic. I thought he should know theres a larger world out there; it didn't seem like he knows that and is trying to be a big fish in a tiny pond. (Like a factory worker who just discovered logic and can't get enough.) I don't have the time or inclination to get into a detailed debate, especially not with someone I do not respect. I can't think of anything less enjoyable to do in my free time.

There are a TON of better sites to engage in debate than SSrg. It is better to have collaborative conversations with musicians where they bounce ideas off each other than to have people acting as dictators and fact checkers. Its one thing to disagree, but to be demonized because your opinion is different is where things get out of hand.


----------



## Promit (Jan 31, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> I don't have the time or inclination to get into a detailed debate, especially not with someone I do not respect. I can't think of anything less enjoyable to do in my free time.
> 
> There are a TON of better sites to engage in debate than SSrg. It is better to have collaborative conversations with musicians where they bounce ideas off each other than to have people acting as dictators and fact checkers. Its one thing to disagree, but to be demonized because your opinion is different is where things get out of hand.


While I don't agree with your characterization of Explorer, I do understand what you're saying and don't have a problem with your thoughts here. I'm just asking you to put your degree back in your pants, if you catch my oh-so-subtle meaning.


----------



## celticelk (Jan 31, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> I think Explorer has a track record of trying to be the person you describe. I mentioned my credientials because he accused me and some others of faulty logic. I thought he should know theres a larger world out there; it didn't seem like he knows that and is trying to be a big fish in a tiny pond. (Like a factory worker who just discovered logic and can't get enough.) I don't have the time or inclination to get into a detailed debate, especially not with someone I do not respect. I can't think of anything less enjoyable to do in my free time.
> 
> There are a TON of better sites to engage in debate than SSrg. It is better to have collaborative conversations with musicians where they bounce ideas off each other than to have people acting as dictators and fact checkers. Its one thing to disagree, but to be demonized because your opinion is different is where things get out of hand.



I'm finding it difficult to reconcile this statement of position with the fact that you keep posting in this thread and others in this subforum, knowing what sort of response you're likely to get.


----------



## Necris (Jan 31, 2015)

I would think having people act as fact checkers would actually be a useful thing in a discussion which revolves around facts and not opinions.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 31, 2015)

Fun fact: Long ago, when I switched majors from Russian (with minors in Spanish and French) to computers, Comp Sci and IT hadn't yet been adopted as names for that field. It was instead all called MIS.

So, when I switched majors in my third year, I couldn't get into a logic class in the MIS department, but managed to find a class filling the requirement in the Philosophy department. It wasn't just about logic, but about identifying faulty premises, even one's own. It was about developing critical thinking, leading to better reasoning and conclusions.

That handy tool of finding ways to falsify one's own conclusions as well as the conclusions of others, in order to test if one is basing those conclusions on reason and evidence, is something I still use to test claims.

----

GoldDragon, I'm going to point out that you have made many claims which were severe overreach, and not supported by facts. I already mentioned your previous claim, from another topic, that the reason the US and other countries have low crime rates is because of Christian morality.

When I asked you why secular countries like those in Scandanavia, and even countires which were never Christian like Japan, had lower crime rates than the currently majority-Christian US, you said that those lower rates were due to the morality Christianity left behind.

When I asked you to include Japan in your argument, you dropped out of the conversation.

*You might see that as intimidation.

I see it as making claims which evidence don't support, and then falling silent when one recognizes that lack of support. I also see it as choosing silence instead of admitting that one cannot support a claim.*

If you want to say that finding that one cannot prove one's case can be intimidating to someone who is wrong, I won't argue with that... but that intimidation comes from an internal source, the need to support an unsupportable argument when the facts in evidence are against that argument.

If I've misunderstood your silence on the whole "low crime in Japan due to Christian values" thing, I'll soon see that topic bumped with your evidence supporting that claim. Until then, I'll assume you have no good argument on that overreach.


----------



## Danukenator (Jan 31, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> A warmer wetter earth?
> Well if we're not going to install population management programs the world over (real ones that not many will like) then maybe a warmer wetter earth will open up new lands for farming and also help restore many of the world's depleting freshwater stores. ("always look on the bright side of life")
> 
> Maybe the whole industrial age is just a product of an alien intervention designed to prolong earth's temporarily habitable surface environment . (for their grand human experiment)



EDIT: NVM not worth it.


----------



## asher (Jan 31, 2015)

Yeah dude, our new warm permadrought in California is going to be _amazing_ for the avocados.

And "wetter" does jack all when it's from strong tropical storms, because they're actually quite bad for fertile topsoil.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 31, 2015)

celticelk said:


> I'm finding it difficult to reconcile this statement of position with the fact that you keep posting in this thread and others in this subforum, knowing what sort of response which *shaky unsupported claims about facts *are likely to get.



Fixed.


----------



## ElRay (Jan 31, 2015)

Another data point for those that beLIEve the myth that there's no consensus. From Public and Scientists&#8217; Views on Science and Society which basically shows how ill-informed and arrogant about their ignorance most folks are:


----------



## bhakan (Jan 31, 2015)

ElRay said:


> Another data point for those that beLIEve the myth that there's no consensus. From Public and Scientists Views on Science and Society which basically shows how ill-informed and arrogant about their ignorance most folks are:


I think this is really all that needs to be said on the topic. I haven't personally confirmed that this is a reliable survey, but assuming it is, this is the current truth. Could 87% of scientists be wrong? Absolutely, we've been wrong about things before. Will somebody on the internet with a comp sci degree (or whatever, nothing personal, just one I remember seeing) change this? No. 

If you have a degree in climatology, please continue to question the majority, doing so has been a large part of how we've gotten where we are no technologically. If you do not have a degree in climatology though, what makes your ideas better than the scientific consensus? I'm all for pointless debates on the internet. I enjoy debating even if I know I will never change the other person's mind, but if these articles haven't changed more than a handful of the scientific communities minds' (who know way more than we ever will on the subject) they are probably based off of bad science that we just aren't seeing due to ignorance on the subject.


----------



## ToS (Feb 1, 2015)

asher said:


> About that supposedly non-existent consensus:
> 
> The 97 percent: Three key papers quantifying scientific concensus on climate change Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center



Well, this thread should have already stopped after this post. The link reports on three peer-reviewed publications in renowned journals that provide irrefutable support for the scientific consensus (among experts in the field) on anthropogenic global warming. 

Ignoring such consensus is like asking 100 physicians about the best treatment for a deadly disease and going with the advice that 3 of them give (with 97 arguing for the same alternative treatment). Frankly, such behaviour is simply irrational.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 1, 2015)

That's the thing, Bhakan. It doesn't matter how much actual evidence there is which actually disproves ThatCanadianGuy's claim. TCG/DvEric/Dicky just isn't capable of hearing it. He has a belief which isn't based on reason, and he refused to even consider any possible way that evidence could disprove his belief. 

That observable and demonstrable fact that both TCG and GoldDragon just aren't even capable of seeing where they're going wrong when they make claims about facts. In order to protect the belief-based claims, they flail around about how logic is intimidating to them, or they toss around mistaken claims about logic and constructing a decent argument. The fact that they both have made false claims about what certain arguments actually are is just sad.

It's interesting when I interact with people who rarely have contact outside their bubble of confirmation. I know lots of people who only watch Fox News, for example, and they often completely shut down when a widely reported fact contradicts that source and/or the talking points presented on it. 

It took me a while to really believe that they weren't doing it in a malicious way, but that it was just some kind of psychologically blind pathology. 

I thought for sure that TCG was going to be able to break out of his pathology at the point where I used his Santa Claus example to show how one could convince rational adults that something supernatural had happened. It was easy to follow, and a great example of how something as unlikely as Santa being real could have enough evidence around it to overcome pretty hardcore skepticism around the globe. 

*For TCG, it is apparently easier to argue that one could might find evidence for Santa Claus than that TCG might be mistaken. *

*It's more likely to prove that Santa exists than that he made a mistake. *

That's pretty hardcore.

After that pretty miserable showing, I'm pretty sure there's at least one person who is grateful that rep is gone. 

At least TCG is smarter than Eric. Eric kept starting topics arguing the same stuff, arguing that there was no evidence which would change his beliefs, and he's gone. TCG just abandoned ship before the hammer came down.


----------



## Danukenator (Feb 1, 2015)

ElRay said:


> Another data point for those that beLIEve the myth that there's no consensus. From Public and Scientists&#8217; Views on Science and Society which basically shows how ill-informed and arrogant about their ignorance most folks are:



To add to this most scientists are not divided into just one camp.

I only mention this because many people believe scientists are ignoring natural feedbacks that are contributing to global climate change (forest secession in Canada has change the regions albedo, increasing the amount of absorbed isolation). These are well documented so scientists are usually of the opinion that the change in cause primarily by anthropogenic sources but then amplified by natural forcing and feedbacks. 

People were talking about clouds earlier. Their net effect is still debated but clearly it's not to make-or-break what is known about current trends in global climate change.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 6, 2015)

asher said:


> Yeah dude, our new warm permadrought in California is going to be _amazing_ for the avocados.
> 
> And "wetter" does jack all when it's from strong tropical storms, because they're actually quite bad for fertile topsoil.



Yeah man, the "great breadbasket of world" the southern Canadian Plains and the Dakotas .

Learn to love climate change, because it's unstoppable, regardless of it's causes or extent. I promise it will never change in a way to make everyone happy at all locations. 

Man must continue to develop new technologies in order to leave less of an environmental footprint, that much is true, but unfortunately there are much differing opinions as to how this is best accomplished while still allowing everyone a "fair" opportunity to make a living and compete in our new global economy. (oh yeah!!! Obama would like this "fairness talk")


----------



## Animus (Apr 12, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I understand that you deny there is a consensus.
> 
> *What evidence would it take for you change your mind about what you claim (a lack of scientific consensus among climate scientists), and convince  you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?*



For me it would be simply their "climate models" actually reflecting what actually happened in temperature. Their whole theory is based on computer models and it has become increasingly obvious they are vastly overestimating CO2 forcings. There has been no statistically significant warming since around 1998, despite exponential increases in CO2 emmissions. Even Hansen has admitted as such, and now they are frantically scurrying around trying to explain it and moving goalposts. What do you think they changed it to "climate change" from "global warming"?

The whole "consensus" thing is a joke. Of course, no scientist would deny climate change. It has always happened and will happen in the future. The issue is if "man" has an impact on the warming and how significant it may or may not be, there is no consensus on that. Science is by nature skeptical. Anyone telling you there's a consensus on something you should instantly be skeptical. And there are lot's of things to be skeptical about in "AGW". And let's not even talk about Climategate.

Me personally, I think mankind does have some affect on warming but it's far less significant than a lot of other climate forcings. And ultimately, there's not much we can do about it practically. Carbon taxing ain't going to do anything to change it and you are just going to make the non-rich more poor through higher energy costs, food prices, basically everything.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Apr 12, 2015)

lol nvm I probably would have gotten banned for this post


----------



## Promit (Apr 12, 2015)

Animus said:


> For me it would be simply their "climate models" actually reflecting what actually happened in temperature. Their whole theory is based on computer models and it has become increasingly obvious they are vastly overestimating CO2 forcings. There has been no statistically significant warming since around 1998, despite exponential increases in CO2 emmissions. Even Hansen has admitted as such, and now they are frantically scurrying around trying to explain it and moving goalposts. What do you think they changed it to "climate change" from "global warming"?
> 
> The whole "consensus" thing is a joke. Of course, no scientist would deny climate change. It has always happened and will happen in the future. The issue is if "man" has an impact on the warming and how significant it may or may not be, there is no consensus on that. Science is by nature skeptical. Anyone telling you there's a consensus on something you should instantly be skeptical. And there are lot's of things to be skeptical about in "AGW". And let's not even talk about Climategate.



And that, ladies and gentleman, is what it looks like when a liar shows their hand.


----------



## Grindspine (Apr 12, 2015)

I am just going to throw some food for thought into the fray.

Ice is a buffer.

When one tries to heat a glass of water with ice in it, the temperature (on average) does not raise that quickly. The ice has to absorb energy and melt before the temperature of those molecules is free to increase.

Those looking for evidence might want to turn their attention to the glaciers of the world. An eye-opening experience for me was seeing photographs of several glaciers taken during the 1970s and 1980s compared to the same glaciers photographed between 2000 and 2010. The exhibit at the Columbus (Ohio) Zoo and Aquarium features these photographs on the walkway to the penguin exhibit.

My point is that those who believe temperature is not increasing appreciably are not foreseeing what will happen as the glaciers thaw; they are not considering the interaction between liquid water, ice, and overall temperatures.


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 13, 2015)

Grindspine said:


> Those looking for evidence might want to turn their attention to the glaciers of the world. An eye-opening experience for me was seeing photographs of several glaciers taken during the 1970s and 1980s compared to the same glaciers photographed between 2000 and 2010. The exhibit at the Columbus (Ohio) Zoo and Aquarium features these photographs on the walkway to the penguin exhibit.
> 
> My point is that those who believe temperature is not increasing appreciably are not foreseeing what will happen as the glaciers thaw; they are not considering the interaction between liquid water, ice, and overall temperatures.



From _Chasing Ice_:



Edit: That's the first time I've embedded a YouTube video here. Took me four attempts, but I think I got it


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 14, 2015)

Guys, as bad as my area (central cali) is (and it's BAD) I don't think anything will ever equal 1998. I spent the summer in Seattle. And though it was fun, it was MISERABLE temp wise. Almost nothing was a/c'ed and it was BLISTERING. 

I went there to get away from the summer heat of Nashville 

When I got back, Nashville was DEAD. Everything was brown an dying. That was not normal.

But I digress, it's so bad here, it feels like the world is baking.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 14, 2015)

This thread got bumped, and I just realized how moronic this statement:


GoldDragon said:


> I have a Comp Sci degree, with minors in Math and Philosophy. I understand logic and proofs.


is, and how much it proves that you don't understand logical fallacies at all.

First, a Comp Sci degree has nothing to do with logical fallacies in an argument. Comp Sci deals with AND, OR, XOR, NOT, IF/THEN/ELSE that's it. Also, there's nothing preventing total nonsense like:

```
IF (STUDENT.ID IS EVENLY DIVISIBLE BY 13) AND (TODAY'S DATE IS ODD) THEN
      STUDENT.GPA = 4.0
   END
```

Second, your posts have clearly illustrated that you do not understand even the basic logical fallacies. As an example, your statement suffers from the fallacy of "Argument from Authority".


----------



## FRETPICK (Apr 14, 2015)

The PH level in the sea is rising so that gives you a good indication of what is soaking up the pollution.


----------

