Back on topic......................Pov, you have gone down in my estimation. The whole point I was making was about relaible sources of information. You failed at the first hurdle. Please say something sensible, so I can see a shadow of your former self.
Yamaka-where are you? You should have been able to have done your reading by now.
Rog, friends with Arab?? An intellectual disconnection, if ever there was one.........................
Ah, yes.
Tried to post this the other day & it kept winging that the start & end quotes didn't match & I was short on time. From cutting & pasting it bit by bit it seems that the number of seperate quotes blow up the system, so I've split it into two posts. Don't forget, Bunyip, it was you that brought it up again, I'd forgotten
This has gone further off topic than Bautista in a first corner incident, so I apologise in advance to those already bored. It will also be my last post on the subject, so please bear with me!
Perhaps I have been condescending, but it is difficult not to be when people such as youself speak utter nonsence when they should know better. Particularly people like yourself......and people like Ian Plimer.
Why is it difficult to not be condescending? If you honestly believe you have better knowledge or understanding than I surely an attempt at enlightenment is better than condesension?
Starting at the beginning of your response , "If you don't want to look outside the information you currently believe with a passion to be true, then I'm not sure you understand the concept of science".
Well I am a scientist ( the word science appears in my degree), so this statement is a bit rich.
Ah, argumentum ad verecundiam – argument from authority. You “are” a scientist because, as you claim, your degree “has the word science in it”. Your phrase “a bit rich” implies that I have not your stature, and so should not be casting aspersions.
My degree was awarded in 1989 and was in Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science”, so does mine trump yours? Who cares TBH, as long as you understand the concept of science :
From Wiki (can be poor, but good enough in this simple case): “The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to
let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and
challenging a theory when its predictions prove false”
The bold part is what I cannot see the climate scientists doing, as they cling to the models that nature no longer wants to follow.
As a scientist, do I have any expertese in the field of climate science? .
Well no, no more than you, apart from the fact that it appears that I do understand the scientific process, whereas It appears that you are the one that cannot. As an engineer, you cannot be stupid, but you are not trying hard enough here. (more condescention!
)
What is it about “the scientific process” that you believe I don't understand? Why do you believe that you understand it better than I? It is precisely this type of argument that characterises the “believers” argument that the “skeptics” are “dumb”, ie you say that I have NFI, but don't bother to detail what I have NFI about, other than the “fact” that Global Warming Is Real And About To Kill All Of Us, Just Because You Can't See Any Sign of It For The Past 15 Years Is No Reason Not To Be Afraid!!! (Patronising enough?
)
I have as much expertese here as yourself, Joe Bloggs, Ian Plimer etc, BUT the difference is that I know my limitations and trust the experts.
Argumentum ad verecundiam again – trust the experts, ie believe. You might also want to consider that people in authority in your life might not have your best interests at heart....
So 31,000 scientists signed a petition. Big deal! That would represent perhaps 1% or less of total scientists and would only be relevant if any of them were climate scientists.
Notice that you ignored the very clear decimation of your “97% of scientists said global warning was happening” tirade and instead focussed on something that I only used to demonstrate that there could be no “consensus”, which, at the end of the day, is not the way real science is done. Remember your claim that you had the word “science” in your degree title, therefore you are a scientist? You also claim to “ understand the scientific process” but fail to understand that the “97%” was effectively spin.
Bunyip' timestamp='1341544745' post='321726 said:
The point that I make here is very important. As Clint Eastwood once said......"You gotta know your limitations". By this, I mean , even if you are a professional, even if you are a scientist, even if you are Ian Plimer a famous geologist, unless you have expertese in that specific field , your opinion is meaningless. Its just the same as believing expert advice on say heart transplants from your dentist. From time to time I see brilliant posts on the intricacies of sound analysis from Geonard, or engineering discussions from someone who apparently isn,t Lex , and other engineers. It goes over my head. I sit back in awe and leave it to the experts. The experts.
I don't think you've understood my previous posts – I read the published scientific papers – that doesn't mean I parse the words and sit back thinking “this one fits my bias”, “this one doesn't”. Just because you choose not to self educate (based on the decent scientific formal education you & I already have) and are self proclaimed “sitting back in awe” of “experts”, does not make you a better scientist than I. BTW, your comment about Ian Plimer's opinion being meaningless because he has no “expertise” in the field is a crock of ..... When Michael Mann went to college there was no degree in Climate Science available, so how did he become an expert and Ian Plimer not? You chose your experts in the way a believer chooses his high priests. FYI, Mann has degrees in Physics and Applied Math, a masters in Physics and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics. Ian Plimer has a degree and a Ph.D. in Geology.
Bunyip' timestamp='1341544745' post='321726 said:
If you had done what I had suggested, then you would have read articles by the experts, where you would have seen around 98% of them agree that RAPID climate change is real, has been measured, is significantly been influenced by human activity, and will lead to global temp rises of around 4 degrees C or more by 2100, if no action is taken.
I have already told you that I have read peer reviewed papers by “experts” with both POV. Nothing I have ever read shows that 98% of anyone believes that RAPID (your caps) climate change is happening. Quite what RAPID means I am unsure, but all I can say is that the massaged “global” temps show a slight decline over the last 15 years. “RAPID change” would imply acceleration. Or, I suppose, deceleration, but no-one is claiming that at the moment (remember the 1970s?). The temps have been FLAT. There is no acceleration in anything global at the moment. When did you stop doing science and start doing activism? If you can show me ANY evidence for
the following I will listen : “
will lead to global temp rises of around 4 degrees C
or more by 2100, if no action is taken” (I particularly like the certainty of the word “will” - have a look at some of Hansen's old predictions, also based on models for a cheap thrill).
I also like the concept that it can only be “4 degrees
or more”, what about the bistable system that is the earth? More time spent in ice ages than not, and yet 5% of less than 0.04% of the atmosphere is going to send us to a tipping point...... but it hasn't warmed in 15 years – Conundrum!!
Bunyip' timestamp='1341544745' post='321726 said:
An interesting point......sure there have been significant long term temperature fluctuations over the millenia, but they have occurred over thousands or millions of years. The dinosaur extinction ocurred not only because of the Yucatan meteorite, but also because the worlds temperature rose by 3 degrees C over 3 million years. And you are unconcerned by a greater rise over less than 100 years??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You love your “experts”, but how can anyone “state” that the Earth's temp was stable within 3 degrees over 3 million years? We have temperature (taken by real people, with real themometers, however accurate) records going back to 1850 in Central England but still UEA et al see fit to adjust them. However, temps going back 3 million years – firstly that involves proxies, which are not themometers. The thermometers in 1850 might have been accurate to +/-1 Degree. The proxies have to be “correlated” (hard to do into the past) with temps and certainly cannot claim similar accuracies, especially as the 0.01 type accuracy claimed for the “global temperature anomaly” (whatever that means) is, even with today's thermometers, massively misleading.
BTW, your “4C rise over less than 100 years” is from models. There is no evidence that reality follows models, so equally it could get 4C colder in the next 100 years. That at least would not be unprecedented (ice ages are more common in earth's history thatn “warm” periods.
