• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple climate change refutation challenge

jsfisher said:
You mentioned it repeatedly, but discussed, not so much. This is the extent of the discussion:

By the way, as you have presented it, your statement is provably false.
Click to expand...

Well discuss. Elaborate. Is CO2 not a greenhouse gas? Does it not absorb in the infrared?
 
jsfisher said:
The methodology and conclusions of Naomi Oreskes expressed in the essay you cite have been discredited. Attempts to reproduce her results have failed -- and for a literature search study, that is very surprising.

Here is a good summary of the difficulties with Oreskes' essay.

You may notice that Science declined to publish the letter. This is not because of any covert act by the Science editors, nor rejection of Benny Peiser's claim. Scholarly journals expect to be the original publisher of any work. Peiser's findings had been widely distributed across the Internet, so Science followed its standard policy.
Click to expand...
You really should try harder. Oreskes has not been refuted and Peiser has been shown to be a shameless liar. Link
 
Alric said:
How is it "probably false"? Unless you are going to take the time to discuss don't just doubt it.
Click to expand...

Provably, not probably. You made an absolute claim that increased CO2 resulted in increased temperature. In the years following 1940, CO2 concentrations were increasing while temperatures were decreasing. Your statement is, therefore, false.
 
TrueSceptic said:
You really should try harder. Oreskes has not been refuted and Peiser has been shown to be a shameless liar. Link
Click to expand...

I used the word, discredited, not refuted. There is a difference. It is not surprising that Peiser's work has come under legitimate fire, too. Shameless liar? That's a bit much, though. Maybe if Oreskes would release her list of categorized abstracts she'd be a shameless liar, too?

Be that as it may, the link you provided narrowly focuses on one aspect of Peiser's letter; the bulk of his observations in opposition to Oreskes stand unopposed as far as I am aware.
 
jsfisher said:
Provably, not probably. You made an absolute claim that increased CO2 resulted in increased temperature. In the years following 1940, CO2 concentrations were increasing while temperatures were decreasing. Your statement is, therefore, false.
Click to expand...

Come on. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a physical property. That is what I am referring to. In a complex system like global climate there might be specific discrepancies. Overall trends are what's important.
 
jsfisher said:
I used the word, discredited, not refuted. There is a difference. It is not surprising that Peiser's work has come under legitimate fire, too. Shameless liar? That's a bit much, though. Maybe if Oreskes would release her list of categorized abstracts she'd be a shameless liar, too?

Be that as it may, the link you provided narrowly focuses on one aspect of Peiser's letter; the bulk of his observations in opposition to Oreskes stand unopposed as far as I am aware.
Click to expand...

I'm happy knowing that the supposed abstracts that concluded climate change is not anthropogenic either did not say that or were not peer reviewed and published.
 
mhaze said:
Nonsense. Try these -

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57605
Click to expand...

The same tactic the ID people used against evolution. Note how it says scientists not climatologists, and the actual work is not mentioned.

I would go with the Science Magazine and AAAS statements instead of worldnetdaily if I were you.

On a more serious note its possible that the basic problem of climate change contrarians is an inability to discern what is the best information available. Or maybe is just grasping at straws...
 
Alric said:
The same tactic the ID people used against evolution. Note how it says scientists not climatologists, and the actual work is not mentioned.

I would go with the Science Magazine and AAAS statements instead of worldnetdaily if I were you.

On a more serious note its possible that the basic problem of climate change contrarians is an inability to discern what is the best information available. Or maybe is just grasping at straws...
Click to expand...

Your bias is noted, thanks. By the way, some people presented with a link that did not work, would politely ask for the correction. You don't and immediately jump to wrong conclusions.

As for Science Mag, I'm sure you have a high opinion of their esteemed and respected editor, Daniel Kennedy.
 
Alric said:
I'm happy knowing that the supposed abstracts that concluded climate change is not anthropogenic either did not say that or were not peer reviewed and published.
Click to expand...

Oerke's "letter", by the way, was published as a "letter", and thus wasn't subject to peer review. So you lose her by your own standards, don't you?
 
mhaze said:
Oerke's "letter", by the way, was published as a "letter", and thus wasn't subject to peer review. So you lose her by your own standards, don't you?
Click to expand...

I keep saying. Climate change does not depend on the letter of a history of science professor. Since then many more definitive studies have come out. Note how that letter as accurate as it still is, is only brought up by the contrarians.

You know. I started this thread asking for data that would refute the basic concepts of climate change. Somehow it got derailed into letters to the editor and discussions of 500 anonymous scientists in worldnetdaily.

Are you going to show some data or not?
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
I used the word, discredited, not refuted. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
OK, one implies dishonesty or incompetence while the other implies being shown to be wrong but I don't accept either. Does it matter in this context, though?

It is not surprising that Peiser's work has come under legitimate fire, too. Shameless liar? That's a bit much, though. Maybe if Oreskes would release her list of categorized abstracts she'd be a shameless liar, too?
Click to expand...
Assuming that they are not available (and I don't know if that is true), why would you say that? It's irrelevant: Peiser's search included the same papers, plus some additional ones due to searching a wider range. He has failed to show any "hits" where Oreskes claimed there were none.

Be that as it may, the link you provided narrowly focuses on one aspect of Peiser's letter; the bulk of his observations in opposition to Oreskes stand unopposed as far as I am aware.
Click to expand...
Hardly a narrow focus: it is the crux of the matter. He claimed that 34 articles falsified Oreskes's findings, namely that they supported the non-AGW position. When these are examined, only one paper is found to do that, and it is from a non-peer-reviewed journal. Read them yourself.

That makes him simply wrong. Here is another view of the matter.

What makes him a liar is that he has continued to makes his claims despite being shown to be wrong.

Why anyone would believe Peiser over Oreskes is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
I keep saying. Climate change does not depend on the letter of a history of science professor. Since then many more definitive studies have come out. Note how that letter as accurate as it still is, is only brought up by the contrarians.

You know. I started this thread asking for data that would refute the basic concepts of climate change. Somehow it got derailed into letters to the editor and discussions of 500 anonymous scientists in worldnetdaily.
Click to expand...
Alric, I'm sorry but you quoted Oreskes in the first place.

Are you going to show some data or not?
Click to expand...
What data would you expect? Something establishing another cause for GW? The absence of such data doesn't make your claim automatically true.
 
TrueSceptic said:
Alric, I'm sorry but you quoted Oreskes in the first place.

What data would you expect? Something establishing another cause for GW? The absence of such data doesn't make your claim automatically true.
Click to expand...

Ooops..yes I did. I meant it as an example of the scientific position and it got turned into an attack on the science itself. I think the AAAS position page is better suited for the purposes.

And that's the point. All the data points to AGW and a correlation between greenhouse gases and rise in global temperature. If someone disagrees with this opinion they have to provide data that proves their. At this point the contrarian tactic is to say "you can't be sure!". Well you never can be 100% sure in science and yet that is all we have to make a decision.
 
Alric said:
I keep saying. Climate change does not depend on the letter of a history of science professor. Since then many more definitive studies have come out. Note how that letter as accurate as it still is, is only brought up by the contrarians.

You know. I started this thread asking for data that would refute the basic concepts of climate change. Somehow it got derailed into letters to the editor and discussions of 500 anonymous scientists in worldnetdaily.

Are you going to show some data or not?
Click to expand...

Bias previously noted confirmed, sidestepping noted, ducking and dodging noted. Reviewing the thread, you've been criticized for lack of scientific method by all sides of the argument(s). So instead of serious science, here is something possibly more at your level of understanding -

traveling global warming show
 
I think finally your true level of understanding is revealed.

So no data or publications?
 
Alric said:
I think finally your true level of understanding is revealed.

So no data or publications?
Click to expand...

As already noted,

By the way, some people presented with a link that did not work, would politely ask for the correction. You don't and immediately jump to wrong conclusions.

Bias previously noted and confirmed again confirmed, thanks.

More at your apparent level of comprehension. Other levels are available, of course.

scare tactics in Incon Truth - laugh - ignore - repeat
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
Come on. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a physical property. That is what I am referring to. In a complex system like global climate there might be specific discrepancies. Overall trends are what's important.
Click to expand...

The problem is you have been taking the incorrect, absolute statement as proof for other statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom