Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Whenever you get a scientific theory that challenges or threatens some powerful establishment or another, the pattern to attack that theory is pretty much all the same. I mean, there’s plenty of controversy in science, and sometimes the debate gets heated and even very personal. And there is often legitimate concern about bad data and proper science will follow through on those concerns, and often find bad data (and just occasionally find fraud).

But where you can pick the difference between an ordinary scientific debate and an anti-science spoiling campaign is the latter will make no effort to form a scientific theory of their own. They’ll just attack the theory developed from people attempting genuine science. So if you’ve ever read about the efforts to attack evolution, or the cigarette companies attempt to discredit research linking cancer and smoking, you see a very similar pattern to what see with climate change denial. There’s never any effort to build an alternate model to be tested. Because there’s no real scientific interest in what’s happening, just a need to protect their own worldview, or protect their income flow.

And the people attempting to deny climate change have, of course, never made any attempt at an alternate theory, never put forward their own predictions to be tested. Because it is nothing more than a spoiling campaign looking to delay public realization as long as possible.

 sebster wrote:
Whenever you get a scientific theory that challenges or threatens some powerful establishment or another, the pattern to attack that theory is pretty much all the same. I mean, there’s plenty of controversy in science, and sometimes the debate gets heated and even very personal. And there is often legitimate concern about bad data and proper science will follow through on those concerns, and often find bad data (and just occasionally find fraud).

But where you can pick the difference between an ordinary scientific debate and an anti-science spoiling campaign is the latter will make no effort to form a scientific theory of their own. They’ll just attack the theory developed from people attempting genuine science. So if you’ve ever read about the efforts to attack evolution, or the cigarette companies attempt to discredit research linking cancer and smoking, you see a very similar pattern to what see with climate change denial. There’s never any effort to build an alternate model to be tested. Because there’s no real scientific interest in what’s happening, just a need to protect their own worldview, or protect their income flow.

And the people attempting to deny climate change have, of course, never made any attempt at an alternate theory, never put forward their own predictions to be tested. Because it is nothing more than a spoiling campaign looking to delay public realization as long as possible.

Does Deus vult count as an alternate theory?

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I thought blindly accepting the majority consensus is anithema to science? Having detractors constantly trying to disprove it only makes the theory stronger(if they don't end up disproving it of course ).

Your point hinges on the word ‘blindly’. Obviously is some scientific group announced some conclusion, and just insisted we take their word for it and never show their data, it’d be ridiculous to just accept them because they're scientists.

But if a theory is worked on for generations by hundreds of scientific institutions, constantly challenged and tested, resulting in refinements & reworkings, until it produces models with strong predictive and explanative power, then accepting it isn’t blindly accepting science. It’s just recognising that scientific institutions have some basic value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Does Deus vult count as an alternate theory?

It's probably a stronger alternate theory than 'solar cycles'.

 sebster wrote:
Whenever you get a scientific theory that challenges or threatens some powerful establishment or another, the pattern to attack that theory is pretty much all the same.

This also tends to happen when you have a theory that is wholly embraced by some powerful establishment or another. People opposed to that establishment look with cynical eyes and try to figure out what "the agenda" is, assuming ulterior motives from the start.

 Breotan wrote:

Really? Using that tired old nag?

Yes, because it is far from tired and it isn't a nag. Our current economic model is based largely around oil; the changes needed to address climate change will have a direct impact on the 'old order' therefore there is a great deal of reluctance to accept the (strong) scientific consensus and there is strong motivation to try and discredit it.

 sebster wrote:
I mean, there’s plenty of controversy in science, and sometimes the debate gets heated and even very personal.

That heating isn't anthropogenic, it's all natural variations!

The original report is primo example of "cherry picking" the dataset to fit the agenda...

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

Spoiler:

Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.

Spoiler:

I combined the two graphs at the same scale below, and put a horizontal red reference line in, which shows that the earth’s atmosphere has not warmed at all since the late 1950’s

Spoiler:

The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows no warming during that period.

Spoiler:

Due to Urban Heat Island Effects, the NOAA surface data shows nearly one degree warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original radiosonde data showed no warming during that time. Global warming theory is based on troposphere warming, which is why the radiosonde data should be used by modelers – instead of the UHI contaminated surface data.

Spoiler:

NOAA’s original published radiosonde data showed no net troposphere warming from 1958 to 2010, when the data set ended.

Spoiler:

The next graph shows how NOAA has altered their 850-300 mb temperature data since 2011. Another hockey stick of data tampering.

Spoiler:

Because we should definitely believe a man who made similar claims 2 years ago and was was proven false then, right?

Edit: well, I should mention that while he was wrong, he was right about something different. He was correct that there were errors in the data, but not correct about why they were there, or what the difference actually was.

 whembly wrote:
.Stuff

I don't know enough about this field to offer up a specific critique, although a lot of assumptions are being made, but a Blog calling itself 'Real Science' which saw fit to post this gem has little in the way of credibility.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 whembly wrote:
.Stuff

I don't know enough about this field to offer up a specific critique but a Blog calling itself 'Real Science' which saw fit to post this gem has little in the way of credibility.

I've certainly seen a lot of bad data get thrown into the system over my 14 years as a meteorologist, but I'm not going to jump on this guys wagon without some better sourcing of where he got his data.

Oh, it's this thread again.

I'm glad that all of this will be preserved for history so that people can look back and study how we convinced ourselves of total bs and were really smug about it.

So much work for future historians, and it's just this debate!

 Da Boss wrote:
Oh, it's this thread again.

I'm glad that all of this will be preserved for history so that people can look back and study how we convinced ourselves of total bs and were really smug about it.

So much work for future historians, and it's just this debate!

The best part is that this statement works no matter what you believe!

 djones520 wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 whembly wrote:
.Stuff

I don't know enough about this field to offer up a specific critique but a Blog calling itself 'Real Science' which saw fit to post this gem has little in the way of credibility.

I've certainly seen a lot of bad data get thrown into the system over my 14 years as a meteorologist, but I'm not going to jump on this guys wagon without some better sourcing of where he got his data.

I know you know this... but, for others reading this posts...

The author links his sources in his OP....

Here's link for his pre-1979 data points:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493(1978)106%3C0755%3AGTVSMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

ametsoc.org = American Meteorological Society.

@Puffin... in regards to that gem, he's just posting actual newspapper clippings. lol...

Some of it is sourced Whembly, but things like his last one the 850-500mb chart, where is he getting that from?

And I like to refer the the AMS as the Weather Mafia... if you're not a made man, aka a part of AMS, you'll never get one of the good paying jobs in this career field. It's why I'm leaving weather behind when I retire from the Air Force.

 djones520 wrote:
Some of it is sourced Whembly, but things like his last one the 850-500mb chart, where is he getting that from?

And I like to refer the the AMS as the Weather Mafia... if you're not a made man, aka a part of AMS, you'll never get one of the good paying jobs in this career field. It's why I'm leaving weather behind when I retire from the Air Force.

I see...
That last graph, he links the raw dataset for 2016 w/o sourcing header, it looks like he pulled it from the public ncdc.noaa.gov FTP site.

The 2011 dataset is sourced:


EDIT: weird dakka formattings... :/

Even if climate change wasn't happening, oil is an unsustainable economic greed engine that benefits a select few greatly.

The temperature of the earth is not the only reason we should abstain from oil and transfer our society to an alternative.

There are better power sources that would empower the general public if implemented and allowed to be used in place of oil. Furthermore, most of them don't involve spewing poison into the air we breathe.

The production of beef and deforestation are largely overlooked when people talk about climate change yet they are both as important if not more important than abstinence from oil.

Oil is part of a sickness of greed that humanity suffers beneath. Whether or not the earth is warming, the agendas of those attempting to say it isn't are both clear and morally reprehensible. They just want their money, and don't want you to have any of it for your own use, because that gives you power and freedom.

I want my children to live in a safe, sustainable environment with some forward progress rather than greed-locked stagnation with no regard to human happiness or health. Radical Capitalism should be abolished regardless of climate change, and sustainable power generation for our society would ensure a nearly endless stream of jobs, as well as lesser dependence on having said jobs.

The people who have all the money in the world desperately want the rest of us to remain powerless beneath them. The removal of our oil addiction as a species could only strengthen us and move us forward toward a brighter future, one where I could be proud of the collective super organism we represent.

At present I am a wage slave, dreaming of an endless ocean of advancement we might never get to realize, worrying about the comfort and health of my offspring. We can do better than this.

 whembly wrote:

@Puffin... in regards to that gem, he's just posting actual newspapper clippings. lol...

Which he is using to attempt to claim that gun control was phase 1 of the holocaust.

It is completely pointless for us laymen to argue over the details of this research. We do not have necessary training to properly judge it. But if overwhelming majority of experts tell me that this thing is real, then I'm going to believe them. To do otherwise would be lunacy.

When it comes to the whole global warming debate, all I see is two dogs fighting over a bone. That bone is anthropogenic climate change.


I believe that Humanity is having an effect on climate. But I also believe that there are natural factors at work here, as well. Man's contribution is just another additive in the climate change stew, one of several.


But I don't believe for a moment that Man is the sole, or even the majority, factor in current climate change trends. Even if there is "scientific consensus" that it is. I tend to be skeptical of any "consensus" in scientific matters that are mired in political and policy debates. The same goes for those that claim Man isn't a key factor in global climate change, when it's obvious that we are.

There is truth in both camps. You just have to sift to the political BS to get to it.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

I tend to be skeptical of any "consensus" in scientific matters that are mired in political and policy debates.

Why? A consensus is a consensus and, in general, scientists will follow the data. A scientific consensus is probably the most reliable there is because scientists are trained specifically to generate, interpret and evaluate data.

In this instance there is a huge consensus, far bigger than it would be if there was nothing more to anthropogenic climate change than ideology.

 whembly wrote:
The original report is primo example of "cherry picking" the dataset to fit the agenda...

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

You've fallen for a con artist. Again.

Goddard's method is to take old data, any old data that gives him the pattern he wants, and then compare that data to NASA's figures, and because they differ NASA lies. He doesn't rely on good data, he doesn't even spell out what data he will be using before his work. He just does and finds some data, from anywhere, that suits his argument, and uses that.

It's really terrible science. And it's also kind of a mirror image of what the climate skeptics do - just as Goddard doesn't define his method or data set before seeing if the data suits his theory, the climate skeptics make no effort to determine exactly who has or hasn't got the credentials to be an authoritative voice on the subject. It's a terrible way to do science, and a terrible way to do anything except confirm your existing bias.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
When it comes to the whole global warming debate, all I see is two dogs fighting over a bone. That bone is anthropogenic climate change.


I believe that Humanity is having an effect on climate. But I also believe that there are natural factors at work here, as well. Man's contribution is just another additive in the climate change stew, one of several.

There are natural variations in climate change, ocean warming patterns on so on. We see those tracked over decade long patterns. And over an extremely long period of time, measured in millenia, we see very slow heating and cooling patters.

What we're seeing right now, a steady pattern underneath the oceanic heating and cooling pattern, is something we've never at this rate. Temperature increases that we've observed over thousands of years are now being measured over decades.

End of the day, if you're wondering which 'side' to pick in this, consider that one side, made up practicing climate scientists, said we'd see global temperature rises. They didn't have all the information, they didn't fully understand the oceanic patterns, but once that's accounted for, what they said happened - we started to see temperature increases. The other side said there wasn't going to be any temperature increases. When they were wrong, they simply moved the goalposts, sure there were temperature increases, but it isn't due to man.

End of the day science is about models with predictive power. One side has some models that were rough but broadly accurate 20 years ago, and then spent the next 20 years refining and improving their models. The other side has nothing. There's no models, not even any alternate theories.

What amazes me is the number of people talking about "belief" in the climate debate, and all from one side. As if scientific evidence is a matter of faith. There is no real evidence that the science is wrong. There is some minor quibbling around the edges, but there has been no peer reviewed work that shows that the data is wrong. There has been a lot of holding on to minor errors in some data (something that will happen with such a complex data set) and arguments that it must be politically biased, with no evidence. But there is no evidence that climate change is not happening or is caused by anything other than human activity.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

Over a hundred peer reviewed works here.

If I'm doing a literature review, I'm usually instructed to throw out anything older than 5 years.

If I do that here, how many will be left?

keep up the good work! We had no hurricanes hit the US yet central Texas refilled its reservoirs. yea baby yea!

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 whembly wrote:

@Puffin... in regards to that gem, he's just posting actual newspapper clippings. lol...

Which he is using to attempt to claim that gun control was phase 1 of the holocaust.

He then goes on that Sandy Hook "reeks of third party involvement" lol. Throw in a few "libtards" and "leftist idiots worshipping your Messiah OBOZO" and that's about the sum total of the website.

Whembly you should be ashamed of linking that, but then again, crazy bs is de rigueur for Republicans now.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:



When it comes to the whole global warming debate, all I see is two dogs fighting over a bone. That bone is anthropogenic climate change.


I believe that Humanity is having an effect on climate. But I also believe that there are natural factors at work here, as well. Man's contribution is just another additive in the climate change stew, one of several.


But I don't believe for a moment that Man is the sole, or even the majority, factor in current climate change trends. Even if there is "scientific consensus" that it is. I tend to be skeptical of any "consensus" in scientific matters that are mired in political and policy debates. The same goes for those that claim Man isn't a key factor in global climate change, when it's obvious that we are.

There is truth in both camps. You just have to sift to the political BS to get to it.

Indeed.

One of the bigger arguments against claiming that man being the major cause of climate change is that we have almost no data from over a hundred years ago. And a hundred or so years is worthless for projecting or claiming causality when you are trying to project trends that will last for thousands and thousands of years. Especially when you lack data from the "before" time period and trying to claim things about the "after".

Are we effecting the environment? Yeah. But a major volcanic eruption still puts more pollution into the air than anything we humans have ever done.

Temperature is one of the bigger areas where guessing is all we have about the past. We can tell the composition of the air from pockets trapped in ice, but that doesn't tell us much about the temperature of the entire world at the time that ice was formed. The only solid data we have is for the last century or so, and that is a terrible sample size.

I think that "is man causing change" is sort of a foregone answer. I think the better question is whether or not we can do anything about it, because if the answer is "no" - and I think it is - then the former is sort of a moot question.

The US might be able to change our contributions to climate change, at great economic cost, but there is no valid reason to think that we could significantly influence China or India or Russia to do so.

The problem simply doesn't have immediate enough repercussions.

 djones520 wrote:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

Over a hundred peer reviewed works here.

Which are mostly out of date, and don't actually say climate change is not happening, but question if it is as extreme as predicted, causing some of the effects we see or just saying its happening, but is it a bad thing.

 Grey Templar wrote:

One of the bigger arguments against claiming that man being the major cause of climate change is that we have almost no data from over a hundred years ago. And a hundred or so years is worthless for projecting or claiming causality when you are trying to project trends that will last for thousands and thousands of years. Especially when you lack data from the "before" time period and trying to claim things about the "after".

Are we effecting the environment? Yeah. But a major volcanic eruption still puts more pollution into the air than anything we humans have ever done.

Temperature is one of the bigger areas where guessing is all we have about the past. We can tell the composition of the air from pockets trapped in ice, but that doesn't tell us much about the temperature of the entire world at the time that ice was formed. The only solid data we have is for the last century or so, and that is a terrible sample size.

There is plenty of data. Ice core samples, naval records, tree growth records, coral records all give us very good data about the climate.

The consensus is clear. Climate change is happening, and it is man made. The dispute now is down to how bad is it and what the acceptable level of warming is.

The UK has weather records from the mid-17th century onwards, and naval hydrographical records starting from at least the early 19th century.

The argument now is what we are going to do to prepare for and reduce the impact of climate change.