• 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

mhaze said:
No, I didn't reply because doing so would have made you look foolish. You came up with 34 skeptical articles yada-yada-yada. Well, let us just pick one author.....oh, say Dr. Patrick Michaels - he'd certainly qualify as a "contrarian or denier", as you so judiciously use the phrase.

407 published articles.

So much for that argument.



Yes, I answered a question something like "Does man have an effect on the environment" and in the response noted that there might be some greenhouse effect attributable to CO2. CO2 is a trace gas with a few bands where it absorbs long wave radiation. So what? 0.5C over 50 years is nothing to be concerned about.

Note that I gave the out in the retorical question "a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out" which is not really a bad position for an intelligent person to take, is it?

Next?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the (updated) response. That's all I asked for. Why was that so hard, and what was the "factoid"?
 
The factoid was the excerpt of the post I made to Joe Ellison.

The answer to your question was in the excerpt you posted.

Few contrarian papers get published in reputable science journals. The quality is simply too low. This why they appear in journals that are bottom of the barrel....
Click to expand...
You really do not want to concede this point and move on? I don't see how matters that can be clearly figured out in less than a minute with some quick checks such as already detailed can be the subject of controversy or discussion.

If you seriously believe what you said, then we need to discuss what exactly you may be conceptualizing as "contrarian papers". If you still cannot see the errors, then we need to discuss how and what brainwashing may have been going on.

Alric - IF PATRICK MICHAELS IS NOT A "CONTRARIAN" I AM A PINK COW.
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
Originally Posted by mhaze
Alric - IF PATRICK MICHAELS IS NOT A "CONTRARIAN" I AM A PINK COW.


He maybe a contrarian. His published work is not.
Click to expand...

Then must correct how you define contrarian, and either get it in line with the reality of climate science, or select words and phrases more appropriate.

If in this discussion, it occurs to you that some of these concepts do not reflect reality, then I strongly suggest you look back at what sources of information you have been exposed to and how they may have promulgated wrong ideas. Maybe we should discuss those. That these concepts unravel so easy is problematic, right?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
The factoid was the excerpt of the post I made to Joe Ellison.
Click to expand...
It was not an excerpt: it was your entire reply to JE. So what you said was a factoid?

The answer to your question was in the excerpt you posted.
Click to expand...
So you still believe that global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior? If so, I apologise for thinking that you no longer thought so.

You really do not want to concede this point and move on? I don't see how matters that can be clearly figured out in less than a minute with some quick checks such as already detailed can be the subject of controversy or discussion.

If you seriously believe what you said, then we need to discuss what exactly you may be conceptualizing as "contrarian papers". If you still cannot see the errors, then we need to discuss how and what brainwashing may have been going on.

Alric - IF PATRICK MICHAELS IS NOT A "CONTRARIAN" I AM A PINK COW.
Click to expand...
Let us define "contrarian" in this context as "disputing that current global warming is happening and that it results from human activity". If we can agree on that, we can move on to some list of articles and see where they were published.
 
TrueSceptic said:
It was not an excerpt: it was your entire reply to JE. So what you said was a factoid? So you still believe that global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior? If so, I apologise for thinking that you no longer thought so. Let us define "contrarian" in this context as "disputing that current global warming is happening and that it results from human activity". If we can agree on that, we can move on to some list of articles and see where they were published.
Click to expand...

You can define anything anyway you want, but you are not going to get anywhere if you would like to create some definitions that excludes major critics of established climate science. In fact, I believe that your very use of the word "contrarian" and your proposed definition of it,

"disputing that current global warming is happening and that it results from human activity"

indicates a profound ignorance of climate science and it's constituent parts. You may have -
  1. scientists who think land use is underrated and CO2 overrated as factors in climate change
  2. scientists who thing CO2 is a minor factor and natural variations are the major factors
  3. scientists who believe the asian brown cloud and black soot are the looming threats, compared to which CO2 is not important
  4. Scientists who believe in the possiblity that man could be changing the climate, but whose work shows little actual effect
  5. Scientists who refute specific issues of the AGW hypotheses
  • glacier retreat natural, not related to AGW
  • sea level rise natural, not related to AGW
  • land temperature rise based on measurement errors
  • unprecedented recent global temperature rise incorrect, past variations in temperature prove that
  • greenland not showing a historically unprecedented melt
  • arctic ice not showing a historically unprecedented melt
  • hurricanes frequency or intensity not related to AGW
  • polar bears not threatened by AGW
And many other variations based on the specific subject areas the scientists are working in.
 
fsol said:
So is the suggestion now that climatologists don't know about Stefan-Boltzmann? Don't use it? Or what?
Click to expand...

I asked the question why isn't it in IPCC? Does the Stefan-Boltzmann constant apply to virtually every field of science/industry thermodynamics except climate "science"? I wasn't taught that in college, should it have been?

It certainly is known by Schwartz in this low quality journal :)
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Roe and Baker seem to have heard about Stefan-Boltzmann too:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~juminder/pcc587/lectures/Roe_Baker_2007.pdf

I certainly hope you realize just what S-B is.

Alric seems to think S-B doesn't apply based on the Wikipedia entry. He also thought Stefan-Boltzmann is a "paper".
 
Last edited:
You provided the wikipedia entry. I am just pointing out it doesn't mean what you think it does.
 
David Rodale said:
I asked the question why isn't it in IPCC? Does the Stefan-Boltzmann constant apply to virtually every field of science/industry thermodynamics except climate "science"? I wasn't taught that in college, should it have been?

It certainly is known by Schwartz in this low quality journal :)
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Roe and Baker seem to have heard about Stefan-Boltzmann too:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~juminder/pcc587/lectures/Roe_Baker_2007.pdf

I certainly hope you realize just what S-B is.

Alric seems to think S-B doesn't apply based on the Wikipedia entry. He also thought Stefan-Boltzmann is a "paper".
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that the actual science in peer reviewed papers, which acts to resolve areas of "LOW OR MEDIUM uncertainty", as detailed by the IPCC (here is my favorite chart again), seems to be largely lept upon as "contrarian science". Go figure!

When the IPCC proposes a range of 2.5 - 6.5C for a doubling of CO2, then alarmists can of course latch on to the higher side of the range. Actually quantifying the real effect would cut into the basic ability to be alarming. Well, to some extent anyway. The IPCC reduced it's sea level rise forecasts; alarmists didn't reduce theirs, they increased them, in some circles.

Cutting into the alarming nature of the CO2 hypothesis, the theory that CO2 increases are the important thing that must be regulated and restricted, in order to prevent climate change - certainly that must be "contrarian and denialist", and likely funded by Big Oil, Exxon-Mobil.:D


 
Last edited:
David Rodale said:
I asked the question why isn't it in IPCC? Does the Stefan-Boltzmann constant apply to virtually every field of science/industry thermodynamics except climate "science"? I wasn't taught that in college, should it have been?

It certainly is known by Schwartz in this low quality journal :)
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Roe and Baker seem to have heard about Stefan-Boltzmann too:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~juminder/pcc587/lectures/Roe_Baker_2007.pdf

I certainly hope you realize just what S-B is.

Alric seems to think S-B doesn't apply based on the Wikipedia entry. He also thought Stefan-Boltzmann is a "paper".
Click to expand...

Your question just makes you look ignorant. I can't think of a nicer way to put it. Sorry.
 
TrueSceptic said:
I'm sorry but I have to say this: correlation does not in itself prove causation.
Click to expand...

Not so fast...in the AGW belief system yes, indeed, correlation is proof of causation.

Unless it's something that shows that AGW is not real...like say, the global warming going on on Mars.

That's because of um...sumptin else.

Tokie
 
mhaze said:
Yes. Journal of Geophysical Research is not a low quality journal.

Anyone who would think that is ignorant.:)
Click to expand...

I can't see how what you've just written has anything to do with what I said.
 
mhaze said:
You can define anything anyway you want, but you are not going to get anywhere if you would like to create some definitions that excludes major critics of established climate science. In fact, I believe that your very use of the word "contrarian" and your proposed definition of it,

"disputing that current global warming is happening and that it results from human activity"

indicates a profound ignorance of climate science and it's constituent parts. You may have -
  1. scientists who think land use is underrated and CO2 overrated as factors in climate change
  2. scientists who thing CO2 is a minor factor and natural variations are the major factors
  3. scientists who believe the asian brown cloud and black soot are the looming threats, compared to which CO2 is not important
  4. Scientists who believe in the possiblity that man could be changing the climate, but whose work shows little actual effect
  5. Scientists who refute specific issues of the AGW hypotheses
  • glacier retreat natural, not related to AGW
  • sea level rise natural, not related to AGW
  • land temperature rise based on measurement errors
  • unprecedented recent global temperature rise incorrect, past variations in temperature prove that
  • greenland not showing a historically unprecedented melt
  • arctic ice not showing a historically unprecedented melt
  • hurricanes frequency or intensity not related to AGW
  • polar bears not threatened by AGW
And many other variations based on the specific subject areas the scientists are working in.
Click to expand...
I suggest a definition and you accuse me of ignorance of something else. Nice!

You then produce this torrent of irrelevance.

How about you produce a definition and we'll go from there?
 
Tokenconservative said:
Not so fast...in the AGW belief system yes, indeed, correlation is proof of causation.

Unless it's something that shows that AGW is not real...like say, the global warming going on on Mars.

That's because of um...sumptin else.

Tokie
Click to expand...
Classic! Yup, this one's in my list ;)
 
mhaze said:
Yes. Journal of Geophysical Research is not a low quality journal.

Anyone who would think that is ignorant.:)
Click to expand...
He said your question. Nothing about the quoted link. Perhaps you might reread the post and see what the question was?
 
TrueSceptic said:
I suggest a definition and you accuse me of ignorance of something else. Nice! You then produce this torrent of irrelevance. How about you produce a definition and we'll go from there?
Click to expand...

A definition for you for "Contrarian"? H*** if I know. That's a bit of baggage you carry around and fit things conceptually into. How would I know what you mean when you say it, or even if you know what it means?

All I've done is enumerated a small subset of the ways in which scientists may differ significantly from the AGW views. If you call such irrelevant, then what is relevant is left as an open question. Obviously, it cannot be "ways in which scientists differ significantly from the AGW views".

Now you said -
Let us define "contrarian" in this context as "disputing that current global warming is happening and that it results from human activity".
​
Why don't you illustrate your use of the concept with a dozen or so scientists who are in congruence with your concept, then? Ah, I see a problem. You want to define contrarian as believing ....
GW does not exist AND
GW does not result from human activity
​
Well, you will have difficulty finding people who believe something exists and does not exist at the same time. So your definition isn't any good. No wonder you were not finding many published "contrarians", as you would call them. I suspect you didn't find any. So you are worried about "contrarians" whom don't exist. Hmmm....
 
mhaze said:
A definition for you for "Contrarian"? H*** if I know. That's a bit of baggage you carry around and fit things conceptually into. How would I know what you mean when you say it, or even if you know what it means?

All I've done is enumerated a small subset of the ways in which scientists may differ significantly from the AGW views. If you call such irrelevant, then what is relevant is left as an open question. Obviously, it cannot be "ways in which scientists differ significantly from the AGW views".
Click to expand...
I used a term, "contrarian", which you objected to. I tried to define it and now you object to that definition because it means something else and, actually, you like the word after all, or what?

If you want to define a contrarian or GW Sceptic as someone who has the slightest doubt or objection to anything in "mainstream" climate science then that includes all of us.

What was your list about, again?

Now you said -
Let us define "contrarian" in this context as "disputing that current global warming is happening and that it results from human activity".
​
Why don't you illustrate your use of the concept with a dozen or so scientists who are in congruence with your concept, then? Ah, I see a problem. You want to define contrarian as believing ....
GW does not exist AND
GW does not result from human activity
​
Well, you will have difficulty finding people who believe something exists and does not exist at the same time. So your definition isn't any good. No wonder you were not finding many published "contrarians", as you would call them. I suspect you didn't find any. So you are worried about "contrarians" whom don't exist. Hmmm....
Click to expand...
Perhaps your Boolean algebra is a little rusty? I'll spell it out in English, though:-

AGW claim: (current GW is happening) AND (it is the result of human activity)

Negation: NOT ((current GW exists) AND (it is the result of human activity))
= (Current GW does NOT exist) OR (it is NOT the result of human activity)

("Current GW exists" is pretty clumsy I admit and I'd welcome something better.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom