On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:04 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 11/10/2013 2:19 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> On 11/10/2013 12:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> As I said before, I am agnostic on this issue for the following reasons: >>> >>> - I am not educated in climate science and I am sufficiently educated >>> in science to understand that it would take years of full-time effort >>> to get to a point where I could judge the merit of climate science >>> research findings by myself -- even there I would probably have to >>> become an insider, because I understand that a lot of key data is >>> never made publicly available; >>> - I am sufficiently knowledgable of complex systems to be skeptical of >>> the predictive power of any complex systems model at our current level >>> of sophistication; >>> - The issue became so heavily politicised that it is basically not >>> reasonable to trust news reporting on either side of it. >>> >>> I am aware of the 5th IPCC report and I am also aware of claims by >>> reputable climate scientists that the models' predictions appear to be >>> deviating increasingly from the observables: >>> >>> >>> http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/ >>> >>> >>> Are you aware that Judith Curry was on the Berkley Earth team to resolve >>> the >>> question of whether the earth is actually warming. She and Richard >>> Muller >>> had been critical of the analyses performed by NOAA, Hadley, CRU, and >>> GISS. >>> When the new analysis, which met all the past criticisms, confirmed all >>> the >>> previous conclusions, she quit the team and shifted her criticism from >>> "it's >>> not happening" to "it's not predictable". Notice that means it could be >>> a >>> lot worse than predicted too - but the Deniers and FUDers never mention >>> that. >> >> I've been around long enough to know that she could possibly describe >> the same sequence of events in a way that makes her look good and her >> opponents bad. I am more interested in the graphs. > > > Then look at these: > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/
Ok so what's wrong with Judith's graphs? > >> >>> I am not invested in disproving global warming. I like to think I am >>> scientifically-minded, so I accept reality whatever it is. I hope it >>> is wrong. I suspect some people want it to be true. >>> >>> >>> Yes, you're the perfect example of the success of the Deniers FUD >>> campaign. >> >> Maybe, but I would be more confident that I was witnessing a serious >> scientific debate if people were not using terms like "Deniers" and >> "FUD campaign". > > > But that's exactly the point. You are NOT witnessing a serious scientific > debate. There's ZERO serious science on the side of Deniers. This is an extraordinary claim. Zero serious science? > They are like > anti-evolutionist. You resort too much to ad hominem and arguments from authority. If we're having a long conversation about this then use it to teach me something instead. Explain me the models and explain why the deniers are wrong. > All they do is look for some small anomaly (like a > prediction that was off) and say, "What about THAT?". You are witnessing a > disinformation campaign - and the cui bono is pretty obvious. > > >> >>> 98% of all climate scientists agree that AGW is happening and it will >>> have >>> bad consequences. >> >> This is a badly disguised argument from authority. It's precisely >> phrases like "98% of all climate scientists..." that triggered my BS >> alarms in this issue. > > > Since you said you didn't feel up to understanding the science what are you > going to rely on? I didn't say I didn't feel like it or that I was unwilling to do it. I said I believed it would not be possible, with a reasonable amount of effort, to have an informed opinion. Are you a climatologist? If not, you seem to believe otherwise beacuse you arrived at a strong conclusion. In which case, feel free to tell me about the models and why it's easier to be certain than I think. > Talking heads on Faux News or the IPCC? This is a false dichotomy, of course. I sent you a link from the blog of an accredited climate scientist. Her credentials seem legit, from what I can gather from the Internet. Your reply to that was to attack her character, not her ideas or data. This worries me. I assume Faux News means Fox News? I'm not an american so I must have watched Fox News two or three times in my life, out of morbid curiosity when travelling. Plus a few funny videos on youtube that people share. Telmo. > >> >>> But you're aware of skeptical scientists, like Judith >>> Curry (who are given TV time on Faux News), so it's a toss-up. It's been >>> heavily politicized - by money from the fossil fuel companies - so no >>> news >>> can be trusted. You're not expert enough to read the scientific >>> literature >>> - so you're agnostic. >> >> This may be the case. >> >>> You *suspect* some people want it to be true??? >> >> Well I'm almost sure. >> >>> In other words you suspect >>> some academics of wanting to trash the world economy for vague, >>> unexpressed >>> personal reasons. >> >> I wasn't referring to the academics, nor suggesting wrong-doings. Some >> people strongly dislike capitalism and take pleasure in the >> possibility that it could be destructive for the environment. There's >> a sort of moral reward for them in that. Notice that I'm not saying >> that they are wrong. They could be right. I am saying that they may be >> biased. > > > Since they are not the ones publishing studies and analyses what does their > opinion have to do with anything? Your implication was that the warnings > about AGW were falsely motivated. What difference does it make if Joe > Sixpack is biased (and you can bet he's not biased in favor of high fuel > prices)? > > >> >>> But you don't suspect the Koch brothers, Exxon, BP, Faux >>> News, the Discovery Institute, the MacArthur Foundation, and a host of >>> right-wing think tanks of wanting it to be false AND paying a lot of PR >>> firms to obfuscate the issue. >> >> Of course I suspect that too. In fact I'm essentially sure that they >> are doing all that. But this doesn't mean that the global warming >> models are correct. > > > Yet you're willing to suspect the IPCC report by scientists is phony because > some anti-capitalists believe it??? Seems to me that you're biased because > you think that if AGW is serious it will require government action and > cannot be "fixed" by free market capitalism. So it's easier to believe AGW > is a hoax (as some Congressmen from oil states have charged). > > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
