Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[[Matt]]

I am just continually astonished by the gall and apparent hypocrisy and stupidity that people are prepared to demonstrate on here.

You're on sheffield forum. What else would you expect? informed fact based opinion?? (lol)

[brianthedog]

A very strong opinion for your first post.

 

You don't however give any reason for your opinion, and why you think the opinion of the majority of scientists working on the area is unscientific?

 

As it stands all that you have posted tells us anything about, is yourself.

 

I think the scientists are being unscientific. Put simply, the data sets they are working with are not large enough to conclude that man-made climate change is real. The reaction to the risk of man-made climate has been largely positive - increased recycling and people striving to consume less energy. However, then the negatives kick-in; green hysteria, high taxes and a biased media perspective. Of course the climate is changing, if it wasn't it'd be the only time ever that the earth wasn't heating up or cooling down. What remains completely unproven is how much man is contributing to it - if at all.

 

EDIT: Just noticed [Matt]'s signature...

 

Large skepticism leads to large understanding. Small skepticism leads to small understanding. No skepticism leads to no understanding.

 

So I guess that applies to us skeptics too!

Edited January 21, 2010 by brianthedog
added a bit

[[Matt]]

EDIT: Just noticed [Matt]'s signature...

 

 

 

So I guess that applies to us skeptics too!

It does indeed. If a scientific idea has any real value it will withstand any scepticism thrown at it. Bull**** idea's on the other hand will simply fall by the wayside.

[Wildcat]

I think the scientists are being unscientific. Put simply, the data sets they are working with are not large enough to conclude that man-made climate change is real. The reaction to the risk of man-made climate has been largely positive - increased recycling and people striving to consume less energy. However, then the negatives kick-in; green hysteria, high taxes and a biased media perspective. Of course the climate is changing, if it wasn't it'd be the only time ever that the earth wasn't heating up or cooling down. What remains completely unproven is how much man is contributing to it - if at all.

 

What more data do you require?

 

We already have data from: hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements from airoplanes and satellites and air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

Does data like that from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts not look comprehensive to you?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

[brianthedog]

What more data do you require?

 

We already have data from: hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements from airoplanes and satellites and air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

Does data like that from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts not look comprehensive to you?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

 

No, it doesn't look comprehensive. If you're after analysing a trend, the longer (chronologically) the period of data you can look at, the more accurately you can analyse it. So data from the past 50 or 100 years simply isn't enough to confidently prove or disprove man-made climate change.

 

Just to add... As long as climate change is touted as fact when it remains a theory, I'll have even less faith in the scientists. If anyone else tried to pass something off as fact with so little proof, they'd be laughed at. Until we have conclusive proof that humans are making the climate warm up, I'll remain a healthy skeptic. I'll leave all the smug greenies to keep admiring the emperor's new clothes for the time being.

Edited January 21, 2010 by brianthedog
Just to add...

[Wildcat]

No, it doesn't look comprehensive. If you're after analysing a trend, the longer (chronologically) the period of data you can look at, the more accurately you can analyse it. So data from the past 50 or 100 years simply isn't enough to confidently prove or disprove man-made climate change.

 

With the data from polar ice cores we have data on temperatures going back thousands of years.

 

Besides there is no need to argue trends over thousands of years. We have the evidence from Satellites of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, the only explanation for which is the greenhouse effect. Whilst water vapour is a big greenhouse gas there is no evidence or reason to believe it is forcing the recent rises in temperature. The only explanation that fits the evidence is increasing release of Co2 by humans. No one has suggested another explanation that fits the facts, and as was mentioned a few days ago a survey of peer reviewed papers found none in opposition to the Scientific consensus on climate change being the result of human activity. Indeed when the evidence from that survey was looked at again by a sceptic they failed to find a peer reviewed scientific paper in the same period that opposed climate change and looking more broadly could find only one that did in the non-peer reviewed literature they had introduced in to the debate.

 

The evidence is clear and remains clear, that there is sufficient evidence to say the case is settled beyond any reasonable doubt, especially since there isn't a reputable alternative explanation that fits the evidence.

 

Science takes evidence from facts and creates theories to fit the facts. I am not sure where you get the idea that Scientists are talking about Anthropomorphic climate change as a fact. If or where they are doing so they are doing so using sloppy language. The strength of a theory or model is assessed against its results, in the case of climate change modeling as you would expect from a theory that has attained the level of scientific support it has, the results are very good:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Edited January 21, 2010 by Wildcat

[JIbbo]

What more data do you require?

 

We already have data from: hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements from airoplanes and satellites and air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

Does data like that from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts not look comprehensive to you?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

 

I wouldn't trust the met office with any data let alone global warming.

 

If you compare different met office websites, we currently have THREE different possible forecasts for sheffield for tonight.

 

Rain, Snow or dry.........

 

The forcasts have been that bad recently the BBC are thinking of dropping them for the NZ weather service whom don't have an AGW dogma........

[Wildcat]

I wouldn't trust the met office with any data let alone global warming.

 

If you compare different met office websites, we currently have THREE different possible forecasts for sheffield for tonight.

 

Rain, Snow or dry.........

 

The forcasts have been that bad recently the BBC are thinking of dropping them for the NZ weather service whom don't have an AGW dogma........

 

A) weather is not climate, the modeling is very different.

 

B) you don't have to rely on the Met Office data, as the link shows the HadCRU dataset the Met office uses underestimates global warming.

[brianthedog]

With the data from polar ice cores we have data on temperatures going back thousands of years.

 

Besides there is no need to argue trends over thousands of years. We have the evidence from Satellites of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, the only explanation for which is the greenhouse effect. Whilst water vapour is a big greenhouse gas there is no evidence or reason to believe it is forcing the recent rises in temperature. The only explanation that fits the evidence is increasing release of Co2 by humans. No one has suggested another explanation that fits the facts, and as was mentioned a few days ago a survey of peer reviewed papers found none in opposition to the Scientific consensus on climate change being the result of human activity. Indeed when the evidence from that survey was looked at again by a sceptic they failed to find a peer reviewed scientific paper in the same period that opposed climate change and looking more broadly could find only one that did in the non-peer reviewed literature they had introduced in to the debate.

 

The evidence is clear and remains clear, that there is sufficient evidence to say the case is settled beyond any reasonable doubt, especially since there isn't a reputable alternative explanation that fits the evidence.

 

Science takes evidence from facts and creates theories to fit the facts. I am not sure where you get the idea that Scientists are talking about Anthropomorphic climate change as a fact. If or where they are doing so they are doing so using sloppy language. The strength of a theory or model is assessed against its results, in the case of climate change modeling as you would expect from a theory that has attained the level of scientific support it has, the results are very good:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

 

First off, I don't think linking to a website which looks rather biased to say the least is particularly productive. I have read time and time again about scientists who have been criticised for expressing any sort of cynicism about man made climate change. I also have friends in acadamia who joke that any scientist questioning the perceived "wisdom" surrounding climate change quickly find their funding harder to come by. Obviously they're kidding, but the feeling remains that it's not something to question.

 

From what I can gather of your sentence, your saying that their is clear evidence that there is sufficient evidence that there is no reputable alternative to man made climate change. The obvious alternative which doesn't generally require stating is that the earth is in a heating phase, rather than a cooling one. It's more likely to be this than any other tax generating alternative.

 

I'm really not going to argue this one again. It's fair to say you'll be able to come up with dozens more pro-climate change websites than I will; all banging the same drum and patting themselves on the back for how green they are. Healthy cynicism used to be fostered in science, unfortunately, this one issue seems to have stopped that.

[Wildcat]

First off, I don't think linking to a website which looks rather biased to say the least is particularly productive. I have read time and time again about scientists who have been criticised for expressing any sort of cynicism about man made climate change. I also have friends in acadamia who joke that any scientist questioning the perceived "wisdom" surrounding climate change quickly find their funding harder to come by. Obviously they're kidding, but the feeling remains that it's not something to question.

 

From what I can gather of your sentence, your saying that their is clear evidence that there is sufficient evidence that there is no reputable alternative to man made climate change. The obvious alternative which doesn't generally require stating is that the earth is in a heating phase, rather than a cooling one. It's more likely to be this than any other tax generating alternative.

 

I'm really not going to argue this one again. It's fair to say you'll be able to come up with dozens more pro-climate change websites than I will; all banging the same drum and patting themselves on the back for how green they are. Healthy cynicism used to be fostered in science, unfortunately, this one issue seems to have stopped that.

 

Why do you worry about the appearance of a site? what matters is what it says and how well argued it is. Dismissing a site because it takes a view you disagree with isn't a balanced position to take.

 

"heating phase" is a description, not an explanation.

 

If you are suggesting a solar based explanation, why isn't the atmosphere warming evenly? Indeed why is the stratosphere cooling?