Climate change science resources

Any time you want please present a critique of the scientific research as set out in the IPCC reports

 

Anything free is worth what you paid for it

Now tell me why I should waste my time with a massive straw man argument written by someone who has no qualifications in the field?

 

No wonder you have nothing to offer, it isn't in you to provide it.

Here is the sum total of your replies to him,

Post 18

Post 21:

Translation: my formless OPINION is all I have to offer.


Which is WHY I made the reply to you:

"Your replies lacks detail, therefore you are the one who needs to improve your argument.

AGW conjecture doesn't meet the parameters of the Scientific Method, surely you knew that already?"

You didn't address anything at all, stop make these empty replies....

 

Why do American keep forgetting that climate science is a global phenomenon?

 

You haven’t offered anything to debate so far

Support YOUR statement and I might consider debating it

Bit I won’t do your homework for you

 

What statement are you referring to?

By the way the IPCC isn't a true science body, doesn't have true independence from governments either.

 

It's research. We'll have to wait to learn what it reveals.

 

I really don't care whether you read it.

 

Many countries publish national assessments. National governments are accountable to their own citizens.

 

But climate change still remains a global issue

BTW did you ever read the Garnaut report?

 

Just more alarmist noise.

 

A recommendation:

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
Charles Rotter
If you read one book on climate change, let it be this one By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley There are many books on climate change, from both sides of the…

There are many books on climate change, from both sides of the debate. On our side, the books are better written, scientifically sounder and a lot closer to the truth than on the totalitarian side. Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer, Gregory Wrightstone and the late Christopher Booker are among many sceptical authors who have written excellent, elegant and informative books.


Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, left when it ceased to be concerned about the environment and became just another profiteering, hard-Left front group – in his words “a racket peddling junk science”. He has now written the best book about climate change that I have read – and I have read many. . . .

 

I have to say, I really admire the patience of those prepared to battle the ranks of the wilfully ignorant.
It's a never ending task with little reward.
Like creationists and flat Earthers I don't consider them worth my time anymore.
Since almost everyone, from the Pentagon to Trump's Scottish golf course, have accepted the reality and are actively moving towards mitigating the consequences I think conversations about what we do next are far more constructive.
The type of people, usually with vested interests, still denying man's part in global warming will still be trying to sow misinformation and shed doubt when the water is up to their necks.
They are such a small percentage of the population it's time to leave them behind and look forward towards possible solutions instead of wasting time trying to convince them of something they will never understand.

 

Professors Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv would disagree.

 

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv#Rejection_of_human-caused_climate_change



My recommendation is that whenever scientists are quoted you do a quick Google search to ascertain their credentials and find out how seriously they are taken by the rest of the scientific community.
In almost every case they either have a book to sell or they receive direct funding from the fossil fuel industry.

 

You don't even understand the issue, you are arguing just for the sake of argument.
Hence off you go to the ignore list.

 

I think a better and certainly more reasonable argument, scientifically, would go something like this:

While it is true that there are many credible studies of climate and climate change, specifically rapid climate change with a strong human component that are very strongly suggestive they only cover the last 50 or 60 years. An argument could be made that the data set is not, as yet, sufficient to be called definitive, since the time period covered by the studies is not yet long enough to yield a definitive data set. This whole thing could be merely a climate "hiccup" which will self resolve over time.

What deniers wont say is that the data set is sufficient to cause alarm and to impel the search for methodologies to combat same. I believe both statements to be true.

 

Peter Laut was merely a jealous colleague whose obsessive attacks on Svensmark have been long since dumped in the "personal animosity" bin. Svensmark continues to be published in prestigious journals. Peter Laut not so much.
Nir Shaviv spent 2015 as the IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. You may recall that was where Einstein hung his hat after coming to the U.S.

 

No I exposed your lack of argumentation and no details provided at all, just unsubstantiated opinions is all you made.

I have known the issues since the 1980's, which is why I can support my replies.

You ran away on me, I accept your surrender.

 

Deny this....

"Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today." [emphasis mine]

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008

“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project. [emphasis mine]

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...e-of-the-past/

Ohhh....poor you....those articles are from Nature and the Danish government...so you can't scream, "Right-wing denier site!"

To suggest that people should freak out because Earth is doing what it has always done in every known Inter-Glacial Period is beyond absurd.

It is not my fault that people built cities on coasts long before people figured out that there we're in an Ice Age and that during this Ice Age, there are constant shifts between Glacial Periods and Inter-Glacial Periods.

Prove beyond any reasonable doubt that sea levels should not rise during this Inter-Glacial Period and I'm willing to listen to your diatribe.

 

Since Peter Laut retired in 2003 it is not surprising that he is less published these days.

 

Nonetheless, your argument about Svensmark and Shaviv has been shredded.

 

This is what I mean by a waste of my time.
You can't tell the wilfully ignorant anything.
Goodbye.

 

... yet you continue to refuse to demonstrate your supposed "understanding" of science, as I have done countless times on this forum (and others)... That amounts to nothing more than an argument of the stone fallacy...

... yet you continue to refuse to form a valid argument against my claim... That amounts to nothing more than an argument of the stone fallacy...

Supporting evidence does not bless, sanctify, or otherwise make holy any theory of science. It is CONFLICTING evidence that falsifies theories. THAT is what science makes use of.

There is no such thing as a "scientific theory". There are just theories. Some of them remain theories of religion, while others become theories of science. Some theories of science (that's if they even make it up to that point before being destroyed), become falsified, thus are completely and utterly destroyed.

 

Correct. What he is doing, in logic terminology, is committing the argument of the stone fallacy (iow, he is discarding an argument without counterargument). This takes the form: A->B, !A, and is equivalent to sticking one's hands in one's ears and shouting "nanananana I can't hear you!!!"

Apparently he doesn't know that (or knows but doesn't care), otherwise he would be vehemently rejecting the Church of Global Warming. AGW, along with failing to meet the parameters of science, doesn't meet the parameters of logic and mathematics either, as I have explained in some old posts here and could explain again for anyone who wishes to learn.