Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Climate Change Skepticism


Recommended Posts

Here we go again, models at work......giving all the facts...Not.

I guess you will have to change your vote to another party then because Harper's stated objective is to expand emissions reductions to the entire world. That is the hardly the position of a global warming denialist.

If he really doesn't intend to follow through, then what is the agenda with getting the whole world on board?

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 277
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You also missed my most important point: scientific progress comes from scepticism. Skepticism is good and should be embraced by any scientist worthy of the title. Yet we find ourselves in a situation where any attempt to question the 'consensus' is dismissed out of hand. Even if human caused GW is real the treatment of skeptics is a serious concern and that fact alone makes me extremely suspicious.

Incidently, there are many GW skeptics with good scientific credentials. Their arguments are logical, plausible and supported by evidence. It is possible they are wrong but they should be taken seriously. Any thinking person should get nervous when they see scientists acting more and more like religious fanatics.

Global warming has become a religion with fanatics.We should worry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not ignoring Carter. I have read his remarks and believe that if he feels strongly on the issue that he should publish in journals just as he does with his specific field of work.
Sorry, I made the mistake of accepting a claim by a GW alarmist at face value instead of checking facts to determine whether it is an outright falsehood.

The fact is Carter has published his claims in a journal: http://www.world-economics-journal.com/

Carter's thesis is that science of CO2 forced GW is not compelling enough to justify the social policy changes demanded by GW activists. That makes it a paper on economics and an economics journal is the place to publish it.

Here is the *published* report: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/World%2...%20Part%201.pdf

He is responding to the "Stern Review": http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_...view_report.cfm

Which is another paper on the "economics" of climate change which also makes an assessment of the science of climate change. Incidently, the Stern Report is highly regarded by GW activists and they don't seem to be bother by the fact that it was not published in a journal or peer reviewed.

IOW. You have no business making the claim that Carter has not published his claims because he has.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
Carter's thesis is that science of CO2 forced GW is not compelling enough to justify the social policy changes demanded by GW activists. That makes it a paper on economics and an economics journal is the place to publish it.

Here is the *published* report: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/World%2...%20Part%201.pdf

He is responding to the "Stern Review": http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_...view_report.cfm

Which is another paper on the "economics" of climate change which also makes an assessment of the science of climate change. Incidently, the Stern Report is highly regarded by GW activists and they don't seem to be bother by the fact that it was not published in a journal or peer reviewed.

IOW. You have no business making the claim that Carter has not published his claims because he has.

I have seen his Stern Report response. It was that publication that brought the call from other scientists to publish his scientific claims. He has not done that.

The Stern Report was a report to government that had British scientists contributing their published findings on the subject. It is cited in the report.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have seen his Stern Report response. It was that publication that brought the call from other scientists to publish his scientific claims. He has not done that.
He has published his claims. The demanding that he republish is a pathetic example of excuse making on the part of GW activists. The fact that they resort to such tactics is more evidence of why no one should take their claims seriously.

Here is what he said about the peer review process:

The peer review system was developed comparatively recently by editors of publications to

maintain the quality of their journals. But while peer review aims to

ensure that papers are well-framed and advance hypotheses worthy of consideration

by the scientific community, it was never intended to provide a

guarantee that hypotheses or recommendations advanced in papers were

correct or unchallengeable. In particular, it is no safeguard against dubious

assumptions, arguments and conclusions if the peers are largely drawn

from the same restricted professional milieu as the authors. Moreover, as

the examples above show, peer review does not even ensure that data and

methods are open to scrutiny or that results are reproducible.

Peer review is not fundamental to the pursuit of science. It ridiculous to claim that something is not worth considering because it has not been approved by a narrow circle of researchers with a vested interest in suppressing contrary arguments.

More importantly (from wikipedia)

Peer review has been a touchstone of modern scientific method only since the middle of the 20th century, the only exception being medicine. Before then, its application was lax in other scientific fields. For example, Albert Einstein's revolutionary "Annus Mirabilis" papers in the 1905 issue of Annalen der Physik were not peer-reviewed by anyone other than the journal's editor in chief, Max Planck (the father of quantum theory), and its co-editor, Wilhelm Wien. Although clearly peers (both won Nobel prizes in physics), a formal panel of reviewers was not sought
So are you going to argue that Einstein's work should have been ignored because it was not 'peer reviewed'? Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
He has published his claims. The demanding that he republish is a pathetic example of excuse making on the part of GW activists. The fact that they resort to such tactics is more evidence of why no one should take their claims seriously.

Here is what he aid about the peer review process:

Peer review is not fundemental to the pursuit of science. If it rediculous to claim that something is not worth considering because it has not been approved by a narrow circle of researchers with a vested interest in suppressing contrary arguments.

I'm sorry you feel upset about it. I wasn't the one that set up the system but it has worked on a wide variety of topics in academia. It may have its problems but Carter can't say that he doesn't know how the system works.

You have to ask why Harper is pursuing emissions reductions on a world-wide scale in light of all of what you say.

Einstein's work was not ignored. Several scientists did experiments that confirmed his photoelectric effect while others dismissed his explanation for how it happened. He won the 1921 Nobel but a year later, Nobel winner Niels Bohr said he didn't believe Einstein's work was correct. It was only in 1923 when Arthur Compton's work was done that Einstein's work was accepted.

The Nobel committee that awarded Einstein his Nobel jumped the gun and the peer review on Einstein's work began in full fury afterwards. It was two years later that his work became generally accepted.

Peer review is extremely important and when Einstein presented his work in a scientific journal, there was outrage about the lack of scientific references.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry you feel upset about it. I wasn't the one that set up the system but it has worked on a wide variety of topics in academia. It may have its problems but Carter can't say that he doesn't know how the system works.
Again you miss my point. The fact that GW activists take such an absurd position is more evidence of why their opinions cannot be trusted. Why do you trust the word of people that willfully ignore well thought out criticisms of their theories?

The GW debate is a sign that the scientific process is horribly broken.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
Einstein's work was not ignored. Several scientists did experiments that confirmed his photoelectric effect while others dismissed his explanation for how it happened.
You miss my point yet again. I asked if you believed his work should have been ignored because it was not peer reviewed. Your answer seems to indicate that you do believe that good ideas should be investigated whether they are peer reviewed or not. That re-enforces my belief that insisting on peer review before responding to Carter's criticisms is simply an excuse to avoid responding to his legimate arguments. Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again you miss my point. The fact that GW activists take such an absurd position is more evidence of why their opinions cannot be trusted. Why do you trust the word of people that willfully ignore well thought out criticisms of their theories?

The GW debate is a sign that the scientific process is horribly broken.

Once again, I'm sorry you feel that way. Carter continues to have no presence in the present day climate field primarily because he doesn't publish in areas where more scientists will be exposed to his ideas.

Perhaps you can also pass on your concerns to Harper. He says he will be continuing to pursue world-wide reductions in emissions.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you can pass on your concerns to Harper. He says he will be continuing to pursue world-wide reductions in emissions.
I asked you a question:

Why do you trust the word of people that willfully ignore well thought out criticisms of their theories?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked you a question:

Why do you trust the word of people that willfully ignore well thought out criticisms of their theories?

And I asked you a question about why you would support a man that is looking to expand emissions reductions to everyone if you don't believe in any of it?

As for your question, Carter's theories should be published in a scientific journal rather than being presented in youtube videos. If, as you say, they are well thought out, they will open up debate on the subject. Many scientists don't even see his work right now which begs the question of why. Carter criticizes the peer review process but I have not heard anything about him trying to get published and being refused.

Since Carter does publish his other scientific works in peer reviewed journals, I know he knows how the system works and he seems to accept it there.

Until, he present his work in academic conferences, journals and the like, I will continue to side with the scientists who actually do publish and open themselves to critiques within that process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I asked you a question about why you would support a man that is looking to expand emissions reductions to everyone if you don't believe in any of it?
What does this discussion have to do with Harper? Where did I say I supported him or what he is doing. This is a thread about the science of global warming.
As for your question, Carter's theories should be published in a scientific journal rather than being presented in youtube videos.
I pointed you to a scientific journal where his ideas were published. Why do you continue to pretend that he has not published his ideas? Carter's co-authors (C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland & Richard S. Lindzen) have published papers in climate journals.

Here are a few:

C. R. de Freitas

Are increasing in concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, ??(??), 2 - 47.

Perceived change in risk of natural disasters caused by global warming. Australian Journal of Emergency Managemen, 17(3), 34 - 38.

The greenhouse crisis: myths and misconceptions. Area, 23(1), 11 - 19.

David Holland

La modélisation du climat dela terre et de sa variabilité: Modeling the earth's climate and its variability

Richard S. Lindzen

Until, he present his work in academic conferences, journals and the like, I will continue to side with the scientists who actually do publish and open themselves to critiques within that process.
He and his co-authors do that already.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What does this discussion have to do with Harper? Where did I say I supported him or what he is doing. This is a thread about the science of global warming.

I pointed you to a scientific journal where his ideas were published. Why do you continue to pretend that he has not published his ideas? Carter's co-authors (C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland & Richard S. Lindzen) have published papers in climate journals.

He and his co-authors do that already.

Since it is a political decision on whether Canada acts on reducing emissions, I'd say it is very pertinent to the discussion. The right wing has been prepared to attack Dion for his views. You seem to giving Harper a free ride for his.

The journals you mention are not scientific journals related to climate change. The Bullet of the Canadian Petroleum Industry is a geo-science journal with on a science editor to review it.

Likewise, the Australian Journal of Emergency Management is government journal with no actual research done on climate change.

These journals are not climate journals.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting argument: http://www.geotimes.org/sept06/comment.html

We don’t yet fully understand how the sun dominates millennial to decadal climate change. But for decades we did not understand how continental drift could occur, so many scientists denied it did occur. We may have a grand experiment ahead of us. NASA researchers have projected a major solar minimum (solar cycle 25) for the period of about 2020 to 2030. If that occurs, and Earth’s temperature decreases, solar energy will have been established as a major driver of climate. If the temperature increases during a major solar minimum, the human impact of climate will have been substantiated. In either case, science will prevail.
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest sources of dispute is whether the warming trend in the 20th century is significant or not. The graphs used by the IPCC to justify their alarm-ism have all been largely based on temperature records from tree rings. Unfortunately, there are many reasons to believe that tree rings are not an effective way of measuring temperature over long periods of time. This paper reconstructs the temperature from the last 2000 years using data from different sources around the world but it excludes the tree ring data.

This series shows two interesting points:

1) The shows that the medieval warm period was a global phenomena and not limited to Europe (this is a claim supported by peer reviewed papers).

2) The warming in the 20th century did occur as previously reported but it is a lot less significant that the GW alarmists would like us to believe.

Again, this paper does not specifically disprove that CO2 linked GW is not happening but it does cast considerable doubt on the claims of the IPCC.

Now GW alarmists try to dismiss studies like this by claiming even if they are wrong about the temperatures in the past (e.g. 1005 was a warmer year than 2005) that does not mean that they are wrong about CO2 causing warming today. On the surface this statement is correct because, in theory, the medieval warm period could have a different cause from the warming today. However, you must remember that GW alarmists have *no proof* that CO2 is causing warming - they simply claim that it must be the cause because there is no other possible explaination given our knowledge of teh climate tdoay. The fact that significant warming occurred 1000 years ago suggests that there is another explaination but we just don't know what it is yet.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now GW alarmists try to dismiss studies like this by claiming even if they are wrong about the temperatures in the past (e.g. 1005 was a warmer year than 2005) that does not mean that they are wrong about CO2 causing warming today. On the surface this statement is correct because, in theory, the medieval warm period could have a different cause from the warming today. However, you must remember that GW alarmists have *no proof* that CO2 is causing warming - they simply claim that it must be the cause because there is no other possible explaination given our knowledge of teh climate tdoay. The fact that significant warming occurred 1000 years ago suggests that there is another explaination but we just don't know what it is yet.

It is an interesting study and certainly climate change deniers are all up in arms. Perhaps we'll see more discussion aside from the blogosphere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is an interesting study and certainly climate change deniers are all up in arms. Perhaps we'll see more discussion aside from the blogosphere.
Jdobbin - you really expose your biases when you use the term 'deniers' because that implies there are well established facts to deny. Even the IPCC does not claim that its CO2 hypothesis is a fact - they simply claim it is 'very likely' given the current knowledge of the climate. Personally, I accept the possibility that the CO2 hypothesis could be correct but that it is far from proven.

The use of the word 'denier' among GW activists is a perfect example of why we should be very careful about trusting their word because it demonstrates that they are not looking at this issue rationally. The GW movement has a lot in common with the Catholic Church when it was confronted with Galileo.

WRT to the studies on temperatures withour the tree ring data. The idea that the medieval warming period was warmer than today was well accepted fact until the mid 1990. Even the IPCC published graphs that looked like the graphs in this study. The medieval warming period only disappeared because it made the CO2 hypothesis less credible. Remind me why we should blindly trust conclusions by an organization that deliberately supresses information that it finds inconvenient?

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jdobbin - you really expose your biases when you use the term 'deniers' because that implies there are well established facts to deny. Even the IPCC does not claim that its CO2 hypothesis is a fact - they simply claim it is 'very likely' given the current knowledge of the climate. Personally, I accept the possibility that the CO2 hypothesis could be correct but that it is far from proven.

The use of the word 'denier' among GW activists is a perfect example of why we should be very careful about trusting their word because it demonstrates that they are not looking at this issue rationally. The GW movement has a lot in common with the Catholic Church when it was confronted with Galileo.

"Alarmists" shows a bias as well. However, the fact is that many who are the skeptics often identify themselves as deniers and the National Post's Solomon articles in support of these skeptics was called Global Warming Deniers. I'm not sure exactly what your problem with the term is.

I'm sorry you feel so persecuted. I did say the article was interesting even if it is written by a scientist supported by the timber and forest industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure exactly what your problem with the term is.
I have a big problem with intellectual bullying and thuggery that comes from the GW activist side of the debate. Most of the arguments presented by skeptics are well thought out and rational. They only cross the line when the describe GW and a "fraud" or a "hoax" and that happens infrequently. On the other hand, GW activists are quick to resort to a variety of insults and personal attacks against anyone who questions the orthodoxy - the use of the term denier is simply one example.

It is ironic that it was this intellectual thuggery was one of the factors that changed my opinion from one of general acceptance to extreme suspicion. If GW activists have a scientific case then they should be able to make it rationally.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
They only cross the line when the describe GW and a "fraud" or a "hoax" and that happens infrequently.
I agree that those words and charges don't elevate debate, but when one considers the tangle of business and marriage relationships between and among Maurice Strong, Paul Desmairis, Jean Chretien and their US counterparts, the aromastench becomes overwhelming
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is an interesting study and certainly climate change deniers are all up in arms. Perhaps we'll see more discussion aside from the blogosphere.
Any UN project is suspect with regard to having "big government" biases. And as far as "proof", in Canada, "a proof is a proof".
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a big problem with intellectual bullying and thuggery that comes from the GW activist side of the debate. Most of the arguments presented by skeptics are well thought out and rational. They only cross the line when the describe GW and a "fraud" or a "hoax" and that happens infrequently. On the other hand, GW activists are quick to resort to a variety of insults and personal attacks against anyone who questions the orthodoxy - the use of the term denier is simply one example.

It is ironic that it was this intellectual thuggery was one of the factors that changed my opinion from one of general acceptance to extreme suspicion. If GW activists have a scientific case then they should be able to make it rationally.

I haven't personally attacked you or insulted you. As I said, the global warning denial people often identify themselves as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said, the global warning denial people often identify themselves as such.

The term denier was one that others including the media gave to the group who saw fault with the scientists.

The skeptics are increasingly being called Deniers, a term used by analogy to the Holocaust, to convey the catastrophe that could befall mankind if action is not taken. Increasingly, too, the press is taking up the Denier theme, convincing the public that the global-warming debate is over.

The Deniers -- Part I

Link to post
Share on other sites
The term denier was one that others including the media gave to the group who saw fault with the scientists.

And yet it one that many of the skeptics have embraced.

I'm perfectly happy using the word skeptic but have been told some people don't like that either.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...