Topic: Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland - page 12. (Read 20332 times)

Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.


Agreed completely. It is superior to no review but not perfect. If I could think of a better way I would be trying to implement it. We could also talk about the various technicalities of how peer review works in reality (reviewers have too many papers to read without enough time, big names get easier reviews, etc) but that would be a different thread. Also I am not familiar with exactly how the system works in climate science. I can only really speak for pharmacology and neuroscience.

 
Thats remarkable. A peer review process does not guarantee perfect science, but it does guarantee better science than a non reviewed publication. Or are you really saying that your math or computer code is more accurate if no one else checks it?

Please show some compelling science that is not in favor of AGW.

Ok, to nuance this. I agree, except I place less faith in the peer review process than you do.

Ah I didn't know his chapter was "rewrote" and he resigned. It is a good thing that does not affect my way of reasoning at all. It would be interesting to look at the changes made though. Source?

Lindzen resigned from the IPCC panel after the IPCC rewrote what he authored. He also claims that there is little to no link in tobacco smoke and lung cancer. He is also a member of a Maryland based think tank funded by Exxon Mobil. He's a keynote speaker for the Heartland Institute.

Plenty of other stuff too. Google him. The IPCC does not agree with him.

This is the error of your way of reasoning. How can you reconcile this with the fact he was lead author for the IPCC? Surely all they publish, and all who are associated with that organization must be viewed with the same amount of doubt. It is better to cut through the bullshit and look at the actual evidence, inform yourself of the interpretations of the experts, and form your own conclusions. If you are someone without the will/time to do the third part, it is completely rational to stop after the second. Just remember you are now either relying on argument from consensus, and/or argument from authority. These are useful heuristics, but also logical fallacies.


Yes, I agree completely.

He is trapped in a logical fallacy. Because Richard Lindzen worked on one of the IPCC reports, he thinks he has to be credible to us, and anything he says has to.

The issue here is not Richard Lindzens credibility as a person or even scientist. Whatever Lindzen wrote for the IPCC is credible, not because of the person, but because of the peer review process and unanimous approval. Not much room for personal biases there.
Lindzen debating on tv otoh, is quite something else.

Think about it this way; what if some extreme alarmist scientist that also worked on an IPCC report predicted an imment apocalypse on some tv show or in a book? Is there any reason to give more weight to his opinions than Lindzens?
Credibility is derived from the scientific process, not the personae.

How is demonstrating in detail that the source of skepticism regarding climate change is linked to deception funded by Big Oil, rather than actual credible science?

Laughably, you were the one claiming that your skepticism was not derived from such material after I accused you being susceptible to such material. You then went on to indicate that your skepticism was derived in part by a debate, which I then pointed out to you that the participant in said debate (the one you mentioned) was indeed one of the very associates of the questionable firms and institutes I mentioned earlier. That's funny.

And very relevant.

Post credible scientific research which seriously calls into question AGW and show that that published research was not carried out by individuals who have links to organizations and institutes masquerading as experts in climate science but in fact are libertarian think tanks funded by big oil.

I was trying to get First Ascent to reveal the depth of his knowledge. I agree it is a waste of time to discuss this old, non-scientific document and it is taking the thread off track. I just have a hypothesis that many people who vehemently support the scientific consensus don't actually know what it is.


Once again, Richard Lindzen was also lead author on the 2001 IPCC report... and I agreed with the other debater as well (who I am assuming has no connections to these various propaganda institutes).

And that is exactly the point. The best argument against the credibility of AGW is a deceptive and essentially faked document, masquerading as a publication of the National Academy of Sciences (but is not really) and developed in part by a man who was first hired by RJ Reynolds to obfuscate the dangers of tobacco smoke, and later by Exxon Mobil to obfuscate climate change.

And what is so hilariously funny is how those who claim to be skeptics also claim to not be swayed by the propaganda of certain institutions, but instead cite debates by individuals who are in fact associated with those very institutions. And those institutions continue to cite the Oregon Petition as if it actually had merit.

Sad and pathetic.

I dont even know why you feel this is worth debating, given whats already said about it, given its 15 years old. Its clear what the goal of the petition is: stop Kyoto. Back then youd find many proponents of that, even among those that didnt dispute AGW. Its not like Kyoto was perfect. But the first phrase makes it clear this is NOT about assessment of science, but a political statement.

Anyway, lets parse the text (which has been modified frequently, even after people "signed it"); "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment". Id like to see evidence of that?
" hinder the advance of science and technology, "
This can be argued, though the exact opposite can be argued just as well. Again Id like to see solid scientific evidence for this. Its a hollow and meaningless phrase IMO.
"and damage the health and welfare of mankind." Welfare, for some ppl, probably yes. Health? show me the evidence.

"
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate"

Please note, even back then, they were apparently not denying human impact on the climate. Only that they found the evidence for it causing catastrophic heating unconvincing. In 1995 that might have been accurate. Even today, one might say its unproven, depending how you define catastrophic, and how you factor in likelyhoods, but the evidence has certainly increased dramatically. Even in 2001, so 11 years ago, scientific american polled some of the signatories, and found 2/3 would no longer sign that statement. How many do you think today?

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. Hugely misleading statement. but on the face of it, certainly true. Some plants and some animals in some environments will definitely benefit for some time. But then thats true for most ecological disasters.

Thats about all the time I want to waste discussing a political pamphlet signed 15 years ago by mostly non climate scientists the majority of whom no longer seem to support it today. If thats the best skeptics can come up with, there seems to be precious little skepticism.

I don't even know what you two are arguing about anymore.

So, do you consider the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4) credible science?

I don't know how you would know. But you made the statement, so presumably you do know. Why are you asking me how you would know what you claim? Perhaps you should retract your accusation?


Please explain the justification and necessity of said propaganda and the general absence of science supporting it by individuals not associated with those organizations putting out the propaganda.


The conclusion is: there would seem to be a near complete lack of credible science against AGW. The evidence is the apparent inability of those against AGW to put forth material that is neither deceptive nor funded by those who stand to gain the most financially from solutions which would inhibit AGW.

How would I know?

As far as I can tell, your evidence is:
Oil companies are funding biased campaigns with the goal of fostering "skepticism of AGW".

Therefore:
Actually I have no idea what your conclusion is. What is it?

I believe this statement is inconsistent with reality. Do you agree?

Oregon Petition:

I believe this statement is consistent with the IPCC reports. Do you agree? If not, please explain where the petition contradicts the claims of the IPCC.

I do know stuff about climate change. Don't make accusations. Do you want to talk about ice albedo feedback loops, water density as it relates to global sea level rise, species extinction, or perhaps Milankovitch cycles?

So you know nothing about global warming, the IPCC, or the climate.

There is evidence the oil companies are backing biased research and public info campaigns. Ok, fine.
What else do you know?