• 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

Tokenconservative said:
Of course it is. Your "list" is nothing more than doctrinair gospel.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is. Those quotes are all from the Bible Of Denial. ;)

But please, explain to the congregation how it is that only man can cause climate change yet the climate on Mars changes regularly?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could tell the faithful who said that "only man can cause climate change", and that Mars does not have a climate that changes regularly?
 
TrueSceptic said:
You are too subtle for me. What did that mean? :)
Click to expand...


It was a statement of agreement. I think you nailed it.

One should expect disagreement from climate scientists with many aspects of their science. Its the sign of a healthy scientific discipline.
 
Last edited:
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...

You also have sceintists who believe in creationism.
 
TrueSceptic said:
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?


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.)
Click to expand...

Okay, so you want us to presume a "(" after "disputes", fine, then you have

( A & B)
Not ( A & B) = (NOT A& B)OR(A & NOT B)OR(NOT A & NOT B)
Umm, but B = f(A) -->
(NOT A & B) drops out
(NOT A & NOT B) drops out

---> "contrarian" = "someone who says it's not warming".

Well, anyway, like I said, it is your word and one that you've made a big todo about, so clearly you should be able to precisely define it, since it represents a group of people that you think are doing the world some bit of harm, if I understand your drift right.

But then I did offer my help, and made up a list of things, but you didn't like that, right? Why? It was an accurate (but partial) list of modern issues in climate science.
 
Pipirr said:
It was a statement of agreement. I think you nailed it.

One should expect disagreement from climate scientists with many aspects of their science. Its the sign of a healthy scientific discipline.
Click to expand...
Sorry for being so obtuse. :D

Exactly: that is the essence of any science.
 
Weather Change

Can someone post a link to a recent article about a recent (last week or two) cooling trend in the UK and also containing comments about the Artic Ice being back to normal coverage for this winter ?
Thanks
BH
 
The only semblance of scientific discourse is on the world climate report reference and at the end of the article they point to realclimate.org for an acknowledgement of a better explanation.

The newspaper articles and what the previous poster is alluding to are regional short term (anecdotical) observations. However increases precipitation and abnormally cold winters are predicted by most models. Remember its climate change, an exacerbatiom of climate patterns.
 
Anecdotical?

No, Arctic is is measured by satellite and is back to normal levels.

As for the unusually cold weather, I think not. Numerous areas are getting hit with coldest weather in decades, or 50 years in many cases. This is likely due to the largely dormant sun.
 
Last edited:
Warmers: Left out in the cold?

http://www.icecap.us/

Sure, Go down middle column to this article. There are other summaries and reports, also, note the satellite temperatures currently. It's a bit chilly out there.

Feb 21, 2008
Snowcover Continues Well Above Normal through Mid-February By Joe D’Aleo, CCM



 
It will alway be coldest than ever somewhere sometime. What matters is a trend, with the largest geographic distribution possible.

The biggest problem of living in the contrarian blogosphere is that it eschews your perspective towards irrelevant observations that do not impinge on the larger picture.
 
Alric said:
It will alway be coldest than ever somewhere sometime. What matters is a trend, with the largest geographic distribution possible.

The biggest problem of living in the contrarian blogosphere is that it eschews your perspective towards irrelevant observations that do not impinge on the larger picture.
Click to expand...

Okay, Alric, well, let's have it sort of your way. You go look at the current global temperature data, and give us a reasoned comment on the current global conditions. Colder, warmer, or about the same as the last decade, and why, based on satellite and ground temperatures. You asked for my opinion, you didn't like it, now let's hear yours.
 
Dr. Imago said:
What's an appropriate timeframe over which to observe a trend?



So, are we to surmise from that statement that regional climate and/or its variances are unimportant? Says who? You?

-Dr. Imago
Click to expand...



The longer the better.

Common sense.
 
Are you sure you want us to include the Eocene Optimum in calculating your trend line? Cause 55 million years ago, it was much warmer than it is today. :)

The longer the better, right?
 
Sure. Better than one season in one country. You can always select the appropriate timeframe from a larger set of data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom