What Carbon

[burmans]

The IPCC reports are consensus reports.not to be confused with "proven science".Albert Einstein on proven science-
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Read more at No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. - Albert Einstein at BrainyQuote

While as someone of a science background I agree this quote, I do think scientist have done themselves a dis-service as many non-scientists mis-use this quote against scientists.

There are many who use this idea of absolute proof as an argument against science, when the weight of evidence is quite clearly against their own argument, precisely because this idea of absolute proof resonates with scientists (who are unusual in this regards). It is in fact an impossible burden to "prove" science because you can never do so in many, if not most, instances (all we normally can say is that we have yet to identify contradictory evidence). Yet, the lawyers (who in recent times seem to be the main naysayers against science, albeit in politicians garb) set themselves a much lower burden given their reference point (courts) requires only that things are judged on the balance of the evidence.

I'm not incidentally arguing either method is correct, just that you should apply the some measurement of evidence to yourself as you would do with others.

 

[drron]

While as someone of a science background I agree this quote, I do think scientist have done themselves a dis-service as many non-scientists mis-use this quote against scientists.

There are many who use this idea of absolute proof as an argument against science, when the weight of evidence is quite clearly against their own argument, precisely because this idea of absolute proof resonates with scientists (who are unusual in this regards). It is in fact an impossible burden to "prove" science because you can never do so in many, if not most, instances (all we normally can say is that we have yet to identify contradictory evidence). Yet, the lawyers (who in recent times seem to be the main naysayers against science, albeit in politicians garb) set themselves a much lower burden given their reference point (courts) requires only that things are judged on the balance of the evidence.

I'm not incidentally arguing either method is correct, just that you should apply the some measurement of evidence to yourself as you would do with others.

In fact I do.I have always argued that I am unsure of the exact nature of AGW.The questions in the article I linked to are in fact some of my concerns but put more succinctly and with many others I hadn't thought about.

 

[JohnK]

Medhead I prefer arguing with you.I gave Moody 3 quotes from the IPCC latest scientific working party on extreme weather and she calls me a denialist lier-plus a lot more that has been redacted.
Even I dont call the IPCC scientists liers.

Moody is a she? :shock:

I should really pay attention as the name says it all?

 

[RAM]

Oh thats good then - lets just not do anything, leave it all to good old Mother Nature. Perhaps she could ask for help from that other Fairy in the sky. That should work.

Thanks for furthering the debate in such an intelligent manner.

 

[RAM]

Another comic genius .....

But let me educate you for a second (for all the good that will do). Supposing it is about a century ago and whilst I'm sure it is done with all good intentions, someone accidentally exposes the thermometer to the sun before they take the reading and they record a figure of 51.7C. Fast forward 100 years and a scientist is trying to map trends in Australian temperatures. The first thing you have to do is closely examine the outliers for accuracy, and a figure of 51.7 stands out like bullock's breasts. If the readings in adjoining meters are consistent with it then it can stand, if every other measurement is 5 degrees lower then it can be safely binned.

And even if we accept the temperature in Bourke in 1909 really was 51.7C ...... so what!?!

It is one day in one town in one country. What exactly is confusing you about the term "global warming"?

It is so fulfilling when you answer your own questions.

 

[RAM]

I'm curious to know why you feel the need to insult those who have a different perspective. It isn't a great way to convince others your position is valid.

Could it be they use the only tools they possess?

 

[serfty]

Moody is a she? :shock:...

With Polyjuice, anyone can be anyone...

 

[RAM]

We have managed to get our Adelaide office and warehouse over the line for solar by using an energy auditor to get our usage under the threshold to qualify for the full saving.
In Queensland the solar installation is done but they want a month to inspect it which is amazing.

So your panels are generating income for someone else for a month?

 

[RAM]

Boy drron you sure have proved my point.
Denialist lie and are very good at it. Lack a bit in integrity though.

...

Go stand in the corner and rejoing the class when you will show some courtesy and respect!

 

[RAM]

Actually do nothing is your argument.

The massive problem with your position is the rest of the world is doing something.

Fundamental fail on your part. Bit like how you call people fools and then get all uppity about being debunked.

Yet again I have already posted a link to scientific, peer reviewed research that shows the carbon tax did reduce pollution. That fact remains unchanged regardless of how often you say it didn't.

Strange I could have sworn I'd posted over 28 links to substantiate all figures and statements quoted? Must've breathed in too much CO2.

Yes you are correct, the rest of the world is doing something - Europe dismantling their failed system, China generating more CO2 each year and commissioning 3-4 new coal fired power stations every month, India is adding to its coal-fired capacity.

BTW- you still have not commented on the failure/bankruptcy of virtually every OECD solar panel manufacturer? The rest of the world sure did something did they not?

 

[RAM]

No one misses me. Or they miss me like they miss a hole in the head.

Well several holes in the head are required to sustain life are they not?

 

[james4321]

Thanks for furthering the debate in such an intelligent manner.

You are most welcome !!

 

[RAM]

Medhead is more tolerant of being misrepresented - I am not quite so kind <redacted>

I had no problem with the quotes you provided, and if your main intention was to prove that Al Gore is drawing a long bow in claiming that extreme weather events are an inevitable consequence of global warming .... then I agree with you.

What I don't agree with is the huge backflip in logic that concludes we should do nothing about the climate change we are causing. Using Al Gore's untested pessimism (and I hope he is wrong for all our sakes), or the fact that raw data is adjusted for known and valid reasons, or that last years' modelling did not predict the future with 100% accuracy, or whatever .......is concluding evidence that 97% of climate scientists are corrupt and perpetuating a conspiracy to make us all poor??!???

<redacted> So I hope you will join me in castigating liars from both sides.

What was the carbon footprint of Al Gore's mansion again?

I cannot find it now (HD failed 11 days after last back-up & 30+ hours of spreadsheet work) but there was a great picture of the incandescent light bulbs in the entrance to his mansion.

 

[Pushka]

I think the best was the climate change conference held in Abu Dhabi a couple of years ago where participants jetted in from across the world and required arctic air conditioning to cope with the heat.

Oh. Just missed another one held in summer this year.

http://climate-l.iisd.org/events/abu-dhabi-ascent/

 

[RAM]

Finally something that should have happened long ago is happening.The American Physical Society is reviewing their statement on AGW.They have been strong supporters of AGW.On this occasion they have put together a committee first to study the IPCC's AR5 report and come up with questions about perceived weaknesses in the report.
A subcommittee of 6-3 AGW supporters and 3 sceptics-will then consult widely to come up with a draft document outlining the science which will then be discussed by the members.

Just some of the questions they have come up with-


A longer list can be found here-
Finally, Some Real Climate Science &mdash; Quadrant Online

The IPCC reports are consensus reports.not to be confused with "proven science".Albert Einstein on proven science-
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Read more at No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. - Albert Einstein at BrainyQuote

Also a large number of the contributors to the IPCC report have no scientific qualifications.

If you really want something to rant (sorry, I meant discuss in a balanced manner) about then get a copy of:

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" complete with extensive interviews with quoted 'Lead authors' who detail how certain NGOs demanded the lead authors work be 'amended' from the submitted final draft (and it was btw) and the published report. The CD comes complete with about 40 hours of scientific additional material as well as details of some law suits brought by the lead authors etc.

The information about CO2 concentrations (since acknowledged by the IPCC) as in the past leading to lower temperatures and an ice age (not the 'meteor' possible explanation one).

The start of it is well worth sharing....

 

[Moody]

I think the best was the climate change conference held in Abu Dhabi a couple of years ago where participants jetted in from across the world and required arctic air conditioning to cope with the heat.

Oh. Just missed another one held in summer this year.

Event: Abu Dhabi Ascent - Climate Change Policy & Practice

Sorry to use you as the scapegoat, Pushka, but this is just the sort of lazy/dishonest rhetoric that really annoys me.

So the fact that the conference participants flew from around the world to be there and didn't turn off the air-conditioning means that global warming is a conspiracy? [Particularly priceless seeing as we are on AFF]

By that logic if they had all walked there and suffered with the a/c turned off then global warming must be true?

Is this really what you think or are you covering for your lack of a coherent argument by misdirection?

[Though to your credit you tend to keep it short, whereas drron and RAM try the shotgun approach in the hope that their more ludicrous claims slip through]

 

[Moody]

Go stand in the corner and rejoing the class when you will show some courtesy and respect!

Sorry that my post (almost a carbon-copy of drron's) went over your head. It will help me immensely in future if you could let me know your rough IQ so that I don't embarrass you again.

 

[Pushka]

Sorry to use you as the scapegoat, Pushka, but this is just the sort of lazy/dishonest rhetoric that really annoys me.

So the fact that the conference participants flew from around the world to be there and didn't turn off the air-conditioning means that global warming is a conspiracy? [Particularly priceless seeing as we are on AFF]

By that logic if they had all walked there and suffered with the a/c turned off then global warming must be true?

Is this really what you think or are you covering for your lack of a coherent argument by misdirection?

[Though to your credit you tend to keep it short, whereas drron and RAM try the shotgun approach in the hope that their more ludicrous claims slip through]

No, I dont believe it is a conspiracy. I believe that participants genuinely believe that climate change is pretty much all man's fault (or that kind of thinking). But, if the participants were truly focussed on solving the issue of carbon emissions, then such trips would be recognised as being part of the problem. Until the participants showed behaviours that are true to their vision, then I hold them in very poor regard. There are alternatives to such trips, but they are choosing not to use them. Which makes me think that they are no more focussed on this issue than those who are critical of their position. Match the behaviors to the views and we might have a starting point for discussion. Or maybe they are only prepared to look for solutions that have no impact on them.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Sorry that my post (almost a carbon-copy of drron's) went over your head. It will help me immensely in future if you could let me know your rough IQ so that I don't embarrass you again.

Sorry it's forbidden in this forum to reveal your IQ lest you be taken for a politician in disguise.

 

[Moody]

Also a large number of the contributors to the IPCC report have no scientific qualifications.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is .... well .... a consensus between governments on the research and measurements and models from various sources. It would surprise me if the vast majority of those sources were not qualified researchers or scientists. Do you have any hard figures for this claim?