That fabled consensus again

Nick

According to the Science Citation Index, the International Journal of Modern Physics has an impact factor of 0.473.

It is a rather lightweight publication. Perhaps Gerlich is on the editorial board?

Ian L

What interests me is the hypocrisy of the global warming brigade who constantly rubbish the claims of such scientists as Melanie has quoted above and in previous similar articles, referring to them as being on the fringe of global warming science and not really experts at all.

Yet, they are more than happy to accpet the claims of Al Gore & Co. as gospel - yet he (and they) are certainly not scientific experts of any description, so why should we listen to them any more credence than the global warming sceptics?

Their very irrationality and stubborn hypocrisy is what finally convinced me that the green brigade is simply not correct. Don't get me wrong - I am all in favour of being sensible about waste, pollution etc but not at the expense of making our lives an expensive misery as a result.

Sadly, politicians of all sides have jumped on the populist bandwagon and it would be a brave political leader who dares to backtrack on some of the more onerous commitments which the UK has set itself in the name of saving the planet.

Pot Head

"something as complex as climate cannot be predicted in such a simplistic manner."

On this blog they can!

Vision Aforethought

I have not read the whole of the above, but as per prior comments on this here blog, the best way forward is to choose a carbon free lifestyle (with government investment in alternatives, not taxes or fines) and avoid using / purchasing items (such as plastic bags) that are obviously harmful to the environment - and an eyesore at the very least.

I have not seen Al Gore's movie, but if it does scare young people into choosing a more resourceful lifestyle, no harm done.

And yes, dubious science from both sides should be exposed.

Forlornehope

Melanie comments with all the self-confidence of a liberal journalist with an English degree from Oxford.

The following link contains a comprehensive rebuttal of the arguments: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf. I am sure that Melanie will be able to show the flaw in the mathematics. In fact there appear to be several very elementary errors in their, rather long, paper. It is actually quite typical of what happens when people with expertise in one field seek to contribute to another without getting up to speed in the subject first.

Dave

That is a truly awful paper. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics could see that.
Mel of course cannot.

ZapperZ

I really do not mind that someone publish a different view, especially when it is something as complex and still-evolving as the study of climate change. However, I find it to be a severe misinformation to cite a paper, published in 2007, and NOT cite other works (see, for example,comment above) that have clearly addressed and confronted the points being made by this paper. That is a serious breach of any journalistic professionalism. It certainly doesn't qualify in any form as a scientific analysis that try to collect as much information as possible.

Wayne Tavitt

Dear Forlornehope- Melanie's point, I think, was to highlight the fact that there is, as a matter of fact, no established scientific consensus on this subject despite insintence from various commentators, politicians and( yes) journalists that there is. Just a journalist doing their job (and more power to your elbow madam). Plus your link doesn't appear to be working which is annoying

Forlornehope

Wayne, I've just checked the link, it works for me!

Scientific consensus is not dependent on the absence any disagreement from anyone. This is a very poor paper that contains several basic errors. A simple example is in calculating the relevant surface area of the earth.

If a journalist does not have the background to distinguish between serious science and rubbish, they should stay off the subject. Melanie clearly has difficulty discriminating.

There is a scientific consensus that NASA landed men on the moon and returned them to earth. There are some people who believe that it was a confidence trick and didn't really happen. That does not mean that there is not a consensus.

Linda Smith

Forlornehope: you posted "There is a scientific consensus...There are some people who believe...

To hold a belief is not the same as subjecting that belief to scientific investigation, ie systematic testing by observation and experiment etc

Have the the "people who believe that it was a confidence trick and didn't really happen" subjected their belief to the same scientific rigour as the "scientific consensus that NASA landed men on the moon and returned."

John Thomas

Yes, why is it that some people gladly believe politicians (they're not known for bending the truth, failing to be honest, going with trendy fads, getting on bandwagons, failing to be objective - now are they?), and yet dismiss scientists who have any measure of scepticism as "not real scientists", or, as people in the pay of corrupt interest-groups (obviously this could never happen to politicans, or their scientists, now could it?). Why? because such people have an inner need to believe in environmental armaggedon, and mankind's essential guilt and culpability. Look at the history of the development of scientific ideas - consensus ideas get left behind, wither, perish, die in the sands of time; progress comes from lone, tormented (in this case, tormented by power-mad "greens") people who question the dead hand of consensus, open minds with new, original thoughts.

Kiffa

Of course we must conserve finite energy. Of course we must reduce pollution. Of course we must recycle.
This is the message that has been pushed since my youth, and is plain common sense.
But it seems to me that 'global warming' is the latest fear-based vehicle to push for this.
I don't believe in it, but if it works.... however, it does run bang smack into capitalism [the production of goods for profit/throwaway society]. I wonder which will win?

fellow traveller

It always frustrates me that, unlike a serious blogger, Melanie Phillips never comes back to defend her polemics when others argue against them with good evidence.

On this occasion the rebuttal paper that Forlornehope links elegantly and conclusively rubbishes the conclusions of the original. It would be useful if Melanie could say why she chooses to throw her weight behind a paper that has been amply called out for the serious flaws in its scientific argument, and then we could have a useful discussion about the conclusions it draws.

That this paper is full of holes doesn't mean that man-made global warming is any more true of false than it was before. This paper just doesn't contribute anything to that debate.

By presenting it as a new insight, and then choosing not to debate the arguments against it, Melanie Phillips is actively detracting from that debate, just as anyone who misrepresents science to support arguments ON EITHER SIDE does.

If on the other hand she'd like to point out the flaw in Forlornehope's rebuttal (or present some evidence with mathematical rigour that does the same job), we're getting somewhere!

John

fellow traveller - I completely agree. It is a major problem with Melanie's blog. They're generally rants that she doesnt have the guts to back up.

Neil

Phillips views the world in black and white. Good and evil, right and wrong. Us and them.

Science, for the most part, doesn't work in black and white. Hypotheses are proposed, data are collected and the hypotheses modified, accepted or rejected as appropriate. Hypotheses that are generally accepted by the wider scientific community after rigorous peer review become theories. Consensus, in general, is rare. It's a subtle process. Phillips doesn't seem to grasp this.

Keith Bryer

melanie, you have clearly got under the Green s' skins. hence they are watching what you write and attempting to paint you as crazy or a non scientist. To them, I say, you don't have to be a scientist to recognize bullshit. Man-made global warming is patently the place where all the loony Left fled after the demise of the Soviet Union. these are the same people who swallowed those statistics pouring out of East Germany before 1989 that proved that communism worked.

Gautam

Sorry, Melanie, haven't heard such utter nonsense on environment in a long time, if ever. It's also highly irresponsible. This is no way to treat global warming. Such negativism doesn't help the cause of saving earth or nature as we have known and loved, one bit. Of course, the Al Gore school exaggerates the crisis -- and some rightly contend that that's just as well -- but the other side that waves it aside arrogantly, arrogating to itself all the right to do bloody well as it pleases, knows even less. This is the fundamental problem today: There are two sides wildly in disagreement with each other; all that can result, therefore, is a dialog of the deaf.

Ian G

Forlorn(e)hope (sic), I've just checked your link - NOT Found - . It only seems to work for you! A search on Global Warming did not reveal the article, but I did find this: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.1239 which seems to support Melanie's position.

This link might work better than yours: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324

The trouble is that most of us cannot do the level of Math required to evaluate your, and their, conclusions.

This might be worth a look as well: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.1959?context=physics.ao-ph

The conclusions of this Russian paer are interesting as well: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.2766.pdf.

Consensus? No way.

Dixon

Forlornehope
March 18th, 2009 3:27:There is a scientific consensus that NASA landed men on the moon and returned them to earth. There are some people who believe that it was a confidence trick and didn't really happen. That does not mean that there is not a consensus."

We know NASA put men on the moon because we witnessed it and it is documented. That has nothing to do with science. The idea that there is a "scientific" consensus that NASA put men on the Moon would imply the existence of scientific research into the question of whether it were so or not! Which would be a truly mind-blowing proposition.

Meanwhile, people who think that the NASA moon landings were a hoaxe are vastly more entertaining in their twaddle than you ever have a hope of being with your sheep--think postings.

Baaa, sheep, "consensus", I've just seen the connection! Baaaa! Baaa! Baaa!

Heironymous Bosch

Hmm. As was pointed out on Radio4 earlier this week, less than 100 years ago there was a 'scientific concensus' in support of eugenics.

R Whitehand

I see we have moved from the specific reque from Melanie to scietnists to ebate the consensus and what we get is a load of ranters haing the cheek to mak a general comment about Melanie's journalism. he has asked a legitimate queston and for John 'she doesn;t have the guts et....' is tosh.
She put her head above the parapet and is willing to back her arguments. Just see how sesnible she is on Question Time when other panelists feel free to demonise her and whip the audience up. That takes guts mate - not hiding behind a anonymous id on the web as you are doing 'John'.
Keep asking the questions Melanie, just like Galileo and Darwin and Martin Luther did before you. Mind you in their cases they had the answers and weren't journalists - Melanie is enquiring and digging, and challenging received wisdom. Keep it up.

Donna

I've not really looked at the paper nor the rebuttle as it does seem to be a fairly insignificant paper making rather outlandish claims. But douze points to Melanie for daring to say what many won't: that there is no 'scientific consensus' on anthropogenic climate change. Far from it. What there IS is huge quantities of funding all going one way: to those who can prove any link, no matter how tenuous (or just plain made up) between climate change and human activities.

Now, I'd be all for reducing our carbon output merely on the precautionary principle: that we may as well Just In Case if it weren't for the fact that this whole CO2 myth has been annexed by the anti-capitalist movement to deny the benefits of modernisation to at least a third of the world's population.

2 billion people are living without electricity worldwide, clearly in the poorest parts of the world, yet we tell them: you can have electricity as long as you only utilise the most expensive and least efficient methods of production - wind and solar. Methods even we can't afford. As for us having carbon-based economies, sorry, but we simply didn't know back when it started and now it's too late for us.

In effect, we're not telling them that they can only develop cleanly, we're telling them that they're not allowed to develop. With millions of people dying every year from respiritory diseases caused by having to burn wood inside their homes alone, let alone other problems associated with lack of electricity (no fridges to store vaccines, for example), these policies are simply anti-human.

If you want to see plenty of evidence that climate change has absolutely nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels, and for some very good reasons why carbon mitigation policies are harmful to many millions of people worldwide, the Heartland Institute has just had a conference on the subject. Link to many of the powerpoint presentations here: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

William Lambton

Keep digging, Melanie!

Robin

Fellow traveller & John shouldn't get too worked up about Melanie's lack of follow-up comments. It's the recognised nature of this diary (which it is, more than an interactive blog) that the debate comes from those who read the diary.

Those of use who have been reading this diary for a good while will know that on particular, repeated topics the viewpoints expressed by Melanie are quite consistent. They frequently point elsewhere to references with which we can agree or disagree. If our posts are published, we can pass judgements on these outside references as well as on Melanie's observations.

It's the tenor of this diary that the comments range from total agreement to total disagreement. Sometimes respondees support their opinions with reliable links elsewhere. Sometimes total nonsense is written. We have regular posters here who are plain weird - but that's what is so enjoyable about this diary.

Those people who support AGW (and I don't) ought to look, for example, at www.junkscience.com which is a rich source of comment on this topic from scientists who also do not support Algoreology.

John Brignell's site - www.numberwatch.co.uk - is also a good place to go. There are very many blogs/sites which challenge the AGW theory very rigorously.

To describe Melanie as a "ranter" rather does her an injustice.

Olly

Dixon said:
Baaa, sheep, "consensus", I've just seen the connection! Baaaa! Baaa! Baaa!

What a mature, thinking individual you are Dixon - not at all a ranting, purple-faced, angry and rather thick old loon.

fellow traveller

Robin: "It's the recognised nature of this diary (which it is, more than an interactive blog) that the debate comes from those who read the diary."

Oh come on. It's called a blog, it claims to be a blog. Look at the top of the page.

I've been coming here for quite some time too.

The frustration is that some of the posts don't seem to stand up to informed analysis, like this one. The point of a blog is that the poster and commenters debate together. It frees the blogger from having to be rigorous, because then he or she engages in a conversation, and can accept that sometimes other people have done the research that the blogger hasn't bothered to do (or doesn't understand), and we all learn something.

On the other hand this is just traditional polemical journalism, opinions handed down that claim authority simply because of the place they are published, but with one difference: it's really, really poorly researched.

Ian G

I note that the other papers I gave the links for have not been addressed. They are proof that there is no scientific consensus on the very site that Forlorn(e)hope (sic) quotes his paper from. Some of them also have mathematical arguments. Can Forlorn(e)hope give us a mathematical appraisal of these papers? Or is this just a forlorn hope?

Fellow traveller, would you like to check my research? It seems to back Melanie's opinion that there is no scientific consensus, but ... we're willing to learn.

Dixon

Heironymous Bosch
March 18th, 2009 7:11pm
Hmm. As was pointed out on Radio4 earlier this week, less than 100 years ago there was a 'scientific concensus' in support of eugenics."

Dont forget also the consensus that the industrial revolution was going to end because of a shortage of horses. Or the consensus that an environmental apocalypse was going to engulf Manhatten Island as the rate of horse droppings was inreasing faster than the rate at which they were being removed...absolutely logical that one.

Or the consensus 20 years ago that by now millions of Britons would be dying of CJD.

Or that other consensus that had it that by now we would have cities on the Moon.

Or that consensus that Columbus was heading for disaster. Or the consensus that North Americans had their heads below their shoulders.

Or the consensus among economists ( who also pretend to be scientists ) over nearly ten years that there was "No more Boom and Bust".

Or the consensus of scientific opinion circa 1940 that a long range ballistic missile was an impossible flight of fantasy.

Get together a gang of sheep baying "consensaaas,consensaaas, consensaas" on almost any topic and generally nothing but twaddle emerges. Dont take my word for it, look at Olly up there!

Dixon

Neil
March 18th, 2009 6:29pm
Phillips views the world in black and white. Good and evil, right and wrong. Us and them.
Science, for the most part, doesn't work in black and white. Hypotheses are proposed, data are collected and the hypotheses modified, accepted or rejected as appropriate. Hypotheses that are generally accepted by the wider scientific community after rigorous peer review become theories. Consensus, in general, is rare. It's a subtle process. Phillips doesn't seem to grasp this."

No Neil, thats exactly what she is saying, its your Ecomonger buddies who are guilty of the black and white thinking that you describe, THEY are the ones continually asserting "consensaaas, consensaaas, consensaaas" like a gang of green sheep.

Dixon

Forlornehope
March 18th, 2009 1:07pm
Melanie comments with all the self-confidence of a liberal journalist with an English degree from Oxford.
The following link contains a comprehensive rebuttal of the arguments: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf. I am sure that Melanie will be able to show the flaw in the mathematics. In fact there appear to be several very elementary errors in their, rather long, paper. It is actually quite typical of what happens when people with expertise in one field seek to contribute to another without getting up to speed in the subject first."

If you actually read thye passages quoted you will see that this is precisely the charge being levelled at the AGW zealots, by a phycisist pointing out holes in their understanding of physics.

Dixon

Fellow Traveller, quibbling over "is it a blog or is it aforum,..." and the protocols of posting...Get real, wake up, this is all about generating browser traffic in support of a sites advertising revenue. True of all such sites everywhere. Without ways of making money out of it the web as we know it wouldnt exist.

C.Gee

Forlornehope,
Far from being "a comprehensive rebuttal of the Gerlich paper, the Arthur Smith paper you link to is simply a restatement of the very "greenhouse effect" argument that Gerlich shows is false - from its nonsensical assumptions,to its confusion of the physics of heat transfer, right down to the erroneous 33 degree calculation.

irrational

I am professional scientist and mathematician. I have read both the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper and Smith's rebuttal cited above. The G&T paper contains numerous serious errors, some of which Smith identifies and gives a concise, if necessarily technical, demonstration of the errors. How the G&T paper ever got published is beyond belief, but then IJMPB is not a highly rated journal. Furthermore, consensus or politics is not the issue here, the G&H paper is just wrong as Smith demonstrates.

Brian O'Connor

Consensus, even if it should exist in the case of AGW, doesn't mean that AGW is settled science. Unless, of course, you believe that scientific truth is subject to the democratic process. For my part, I do not.

I'd also point out that scientific "consensus" is nothing more than a provisional guess, often influenced by fashion, and is too frequently far, sometimes tragically, off-mark.

Neil

Dixon, the balance of informed opinion strongly suggests that anthropogenic climate change is a very real issue. The doubters tend to do so for political reasons and very rarely contribute anything useful to the debate.

Forlornehope

Gee! Yes, that is exactly the point. If you get the maths and physics right, you get a restatement of the "greenhouse effect".

Most of the points made here, and in particular those supporting Melanie, seem to be about politics. As the late great Richard Feynman said:

"Do the math!"

Original Tony

Kill all the cows or plug their backsides and rake up every leaf that falls over the entire earth and our problems will be solved!

These two sources of global warming contribute a tidy 30% of greenhouse gases. No need to tax us in this effort either!

Ian G

I find it interesting that all those claiming mathematical knowledge have NOT addressed my challenge. To wit, that there other mathematically based papers by other scientists, from around the world and available from the same source, whose conclusions differ from our self-proclaimed experts. Note that they are ALL anonymous and will not put their reputations on the line. The papers I have cited in my first post are NOT anonymous.

It's beginning to look as if Melanie's critics are bluffing.

Dixon

Neil
March 19th, 2009 8:38am
Dixon, the balance of informed opinion strongly suggests that anthropogenic climate change is a very real issue."

Thats only your opinion...and you even admit, its an opinion about opinion.

Opinion and science are two different things.

BTW, can you actually name for me, ooh, lets see now, ten of those who form that large body of opinion.

The AGW issue is so lively because, for a start, its about scientific authority being used to blind people to actual science, but more fundamentally, because the terms of the debate are entirely in the realm of presupposition, never offered up for question. Questions such as, why the hell should I care what happens to a thousand people on the island of Vanaatu? Why the hell should I care if there are more droughts or famines in the century after I am dead? Why the hell should I make sacrifices for generations of descendents as yet unborn to people who should refrain from parenting? Why the hell should our society make sacrifices for the benefit of other societies elsewhere in the world? Why the hell should I accept that what happens to other species has any value in my consideration whatsoever? Why the hell should we bend over backwards to "avert disaster" when natural disasters that will dwarf climate change are inevitably going to occurr in coming centuries anyway? Why the hell should we struggle futilely to resist something that other societies pay only scant heed to? What is the point of trying to prevent something that is inevitable? Why concentrate on destructively inhibiting gestures of prevention rather than simple and very gradual adaptation at virtually zero cost?

These are all legitimate questions. The AGW zealots have their own world-view which contains answers to all such questions. However, the entire purpose of AGW zealotry is to promote that world-view WITHOUT ALLOWING SPACE FOR SUCH QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF THAT WORLD-VIEW. That my friend is why the climate change debate is so sickeningly loaded and one-sided. It is NOT about climate, it is about a dominant cultural elite ( in media, academy and politics ) trying to shaft the rest of us with their values and stifle any questioning of those values by single-mindedly banging on about a "crisis" that IS only a "crisis" IF we ACCEPT those values!

They are NOT values which I for one will ever accept. My taste would be for the major industrialisation of every corner of the planet and the elimination of all populations that serve no purpose in that agenda.

So, you see, your vaunted "consensus" and "balance of opinion" counts for squat!

Dixon

Forlornehope
March 19th, 2009 9:20am
Gee! Yes, that is exactly the point. If you get the maths and physics right, you get a restatement of the "greenhouse effect".
Most of the points made here, and in particular those supporting Melanie, seem to be about politics. As the late great Richard Feynman said:
"Do the math!"

Thats because it IS politics. It is about dictating to every person on the planet how they must live their lives in every detail. From whether or not they are allowed to work, through how they travel, to how they light their homes ( tungsten lighting being banned shoirtly in the UK ) right doen to how they wipe their ass ( recycled or not ) or even where they put the stool ( down the pan or in a box ).

Your quoting Feynman furnishes us with the flip side of that illustration. He did "the math" ( agh, ugly Americanism ) and helped give us both The Bomb and its much bigger brother, The H Bomb. Then, with Oppenheimer, only Teller bucking the trend, he spent the rest of his life regretting it, wishing he had "done the politics" of what he was doing, before single mindedly concentrating on the accursed math!

Now, Unlike Feynman the safe-breaker or Oppenheimer the bleeding heart I LOVE both The Bomb and its big brother The H Bomb. Like ( I suspect ) Teller, I would LOVE to see these marvellous tools of social engineering deployed and used widely accross the globe. However, I suspect that that is a notion, that you ForlornHope, would recoil from in horror!

The lesson is simple, the politics come before ANYTHING else!

Dixon

Is it not interesting that whenever Mel opens a debate about climate change politics whole shedloads of comments appear from people under names we have never seen before except in other climate politics debates, all of them mysteriously consistent in their pro-agw position? Where the hell do all these people come from? What the hell results in their showing up on this site all at once, like the fashionable "flash mob".

I know that its possible using IP look-up software and other tools for a web-site manager to discover such information as where these contributers linked here from, which linking sites appear consistently in the traffic and how many individuals are actually posting under this plethjora of different names.

It would be interesting to know.

wolf

Dixon
March 19th, 2009 12:08am
Your posts are a waste of time!
Haven't you got anything better to do? A bit of gardening might set your hot head right.
You forgot to mention Nostradamus and his predictions - !!

Forlornehope

Ian G, Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Your first link is a paper on the social psychology of the issue. It's very interesting but does not address the mathematics. Your second link goes to the Smith paper, as you know. The Russian paper concerns the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation and the subsequent effect on warming. This is an area where there is a continuing debate with contradictory findings. The third paper is about the variation in the width of the tropical region. This uses a correlation analysis to demonstrate a link between the solar flux and the position of the Azores high pressure area. This is interesting but does not address the issue raised by the original paper.

The main point is that Melanie has put forward a paper, which is clearly flawed as an example of the contrarian argument. So far, whenever I have checked her links on this they have never stood up to analysis.

Michael B

Japan's Boffins: Global Warming Isn't Man-Made. It reflects a middling translation from the original Japanese text, but is an intriguing read nonetheless.

Philip H

The great thing about science is that nature has no respect for elegant theories, scientific reputations or consensus. If global warming accelerates over the next couple of decades, the theory is still valid, but if it continues to tail off, or we see a cooling trend there are going to be an awful lot of red faces.

Ian G

Forlornehope, thank you for your reply. You have described the papers accurately. However, the point I have been making is that a cursory search has thrown up a variety of papers with a variety of related and opposing views. What they do NOT demonstrate is a consensus. It is the claim of a scientific consensus that is the issue here. You admit that the Russian paper is debatable. In effect, you admit that there are areas where there is no consensus. It's rather like the girl who was little bit pregnant.

Dixon

wolf
March 19th, 2009 5:07pm
Dixon
March 19th, 2009 12:08am
Your posts are a waste of time!
Haven't you got anything better to do? A bit of gardening might set your hot head right.
You forgot to mention Nostradamus and his predictions - !"

Another example of the very dhimmotry that I enjoy taking the urine out of. He/she/its statement...what a blessedly silly name to use, does it think its macho or something, wolf indeed...anyway, their statement exactly and precisely constitutes that which it describes. A waste of time. Followed by a mind-numbingly crass ageist stereotype. Tell me "Wolf" ( fphrrr ) havent you got any Lego to play with?

Havent I got anything better to do? Well, in the 48hrs before your comment I attended a film premier, written a review of it, executed a fetish photography shoot, attended an opening of a contemporary art show, conducted some marketing for my business and serviced the contract of an existing client. What has "Wolf" done in the last 48 hrs?

KB

As Mr Bosch has noted, an act of near heresy was committed on Radio 4 this week when Prof. Philip Stott explained how science works to a somewhat ignorant fellow from New Scientist. The good stuff starts at 21:22.

He points out an important fact that few others seem to mention: that climate models are inherently not very scientific. Because they work over secular time-spans, they can only be verified against historical data or very short-term current data. Thus they are hard to falsify.

wolf

Dixon,you really don't want to know! At least I lift my leg when I pee!

wolf

Dixon:executed a fetish photography shoot!? Hope it didn't hurt!

wolf

Dixon!
On one paw I feel sorry for you, on the other I admire your constant rants and the claim of intellectual supremacy. Its a bit like an art critic telling us the world is pink!
I guess your view of man made problems don't go further than the acceptance of pollution caused by bicycles! Give up these reviews of contemporary art shows and do some gardening, it will help you to understand the fragility of our existence!

wolf

Dixon "conducted some marketing for my business?" No wonder British business is in such a bad state!

Dixon

wolf
March 21st, 2009 4:51pm
Dixon!
On one paw I feel sorry for you, on the other I admire your constant rants and the claim of intellectual supremacy. Its a bit like an art critic telling us the world is pink!
I guess your view of man made problems don't go further than the acceptance of pollution caused by bicycles! Give up these reviews of contemporary art shows and do some gardening, it will help you to understand the fragility of our existence!"

Well, at least you have a sense of humour of sorts.

But where did I ever claim "intellectual supremacy". This is very amusing coming from yourself. What does your saying this inadvertently admit? Its a case of an interpellative backfire if anything!

Think about it.

irrational

To WB. Stott was incorrect, climate models are scientific because they based on fundamental physical principles that are well established. Furthermore, paleoclimate data exists for hundreds of thousands of years for ice cores and millions of years for ocean sediments.

Dixon

irrational
March 23rd, 2009 7:41am
To WB. Stott was incorrect, climate models are scientific because they based on fundamental physical principles that are well established. Furthermore, paleoclimate data exists for hundreds of thousands of years for ice cores and millions of years for ocean sediments."

What you describe is not science but a-priori reasoning. You clearly havent a clue about what is peculiar to the scientific method. Try reading up on Karl Popper and the concept of falsifyability. Climate "science" is not science at all because it is fundamentally unfalsifyable.

Brian O'Connor

I'm curious, and would pose open questions to all who value as indisputable authority "scientific consensus," and would commit the future of Mankind to actions based on the "AGW consensus" (should it exist).

Is scientific consensus infallible? Are there examples in history of scientific consensus being dead wrong? Are there examples in history of scientific consensus being dead wrong even when objective and dispositive evidence exists which falsifies that consensus?

(Hint: Before you answer, check on the scientific consensus of what caused puerperal fever and pelagra, and what scientific consensus had to say about continental drift. To help you, read "Aliens cause global warming," by Michael Crichton (RIP): http://tinyurl.com/33wbk2 )

Brian O'Connor

Dixon wrote: Climate "science" is not science at all because it is fundamentally unfalsifyable.
.
Yes. Or at least, that's how I see it.
.
It's seemed to me that those arguing in favor of AGW load the dice: when warming is a happening thing for a decade or two, it's because of increasing CO2, and the AGW hypothesis is supported.
.
When no warming occurs for a few years of a decade and is followed during the rest of that decade by cooling, then that's only to be expected and doesn't falsify the AGW hypothesis, because AGW is really "anthropogenic climate change" — not warming per se.
.
How does one falsify the hypothesis that "climate change" (has there ever been a period in the Earth's history when climate change hasn't occurred?) is caused by human-released CO2?
.
Anyone?

Dixon

Brian O'Connor, I can give you a current example of two different field in science that each has its own consensus on the same phenomenon, oine of which contradicts the other.

This is documented in the book "Large Scale Neuronal Theories of The Brain." Edited by Koch and Davis. MIT Press, 1995. One paper therein discusses the phenomenon of ARC - Anomalous Retinal Correspondence. Among Opthalmologists, the CONSENSUS is that this is a real phenomenon. Among Neurologists the CONSENSUS os that it is an illusion, not a real phenomenon at all. These are two scientific disciplines. A consensus exists in each. One consensus contradicts the other!

This of course also illustrates the pitfalls of specialism.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there have been lots of "consensus" views in past eras that seemed totally consistent with the data but were utterly wrong because of factors not known at the time.

Kari Lantto

irrational:
"I am professional scientist and mathematician."

Then you are the right man to answer the questions:

1. What is your favorite exact definition of the atmospheric greenhouse effect within the frame of physics?
2. Could you provide us a literature reference of a rigorous derivation of this effect?

Please also explain how your answer to question 2 relates to the 14 conjectures that Gerlich and Tscheuschner dismissed, se sections 3.3.1-14.

karjoolan

Droopy

Hi...

have anyone here have seen the Global Warming swindle Video??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-1B0rO6ciU&feature=PlayList&p=0229E8ABBB40519C&index=0

Maybe helps a little...

Because the Debate It´s not finished!