Finally.

[DodgyAgent]

You absolutely should not take anything from the IPCC at face value, you should read the summaries, and drill down into the chapters and references if you want to understand the lines of evidence that underpin their conclusions.

The Assessment Reports are basically literature reviews, anyone can be a reviewer, the early drafts and all comments are published online. This open process means in my view they are a good summary of the state of the science at the time YMMV.

Blog Science, by contrast the graph from the Greenland Ice core reproduced from Watts is demonstrably BS

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1854621

And DMI - the publishers of the graph from Steve Goddard - point out it is obsolete and readers should use the more accurate version, a detail that EO and Goddard either were unaware of or more likely, chose not to disclose.

Not sure there's much of an equivalence, really.

Or we can do what you do which is to write off dissent with ad hominen attacks on the people that disagree with us or provide inconvenient information

[pjclarke]

Or we can do what you do which is to write off dissent with ad hominen attacks on the people that disagree with us or provide inconvenient information

Its not information.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Well, I'm sorry that you found the word 'link' ...

Clearly I should have used a more specific word like 'correlation' perhaps, just to sledgehammer the point home for the more linguistically cautious.

Lol. That's a pretty important point considering that no one cares about correlation.

Similarly 'proof', is a rare thing in science, there's no proof that smoking causes cancer for example, science works with the body of evidence . The multiple lines of evidence leading the IPCC to conclude that AGW is a reality is laid out in the IPCC reports and there's a chapter dedicate to detection and attribution, alongside useful executive summaries.

Ignoring the fact that you say it's rare, and also quote someone saying theres no such thing...

That's no really a good analogy, is it. There is scientific proof that some substances are carcinogenic, and as such it's not a huge leap to suppose that smoking could trigger cancer.

On the other hand, there is no proof, or even scientific evidence, to show that catastrophic climate change is anthropogenic. There are only models, which isn't science.

Objectivism - RationalWiki

Hmmmm.

Lolwut?

[LucidDementia]

Its not information.

Here's some information.

Your blessed "consensus" is the following in truth : Climate change is happening and humanity has some effect on it.

Not what you folk peddle as ultimate truth though is it? Far from it. The real inconvenient truth is Government Sponsored Fraud. Beat the world over the head with it long enough and in the majority they'll just accept it.

[LucidDementia]

to show that catastrophic climate change is anthropogenic.

Or even slightly catastrophic for that matter

[DodgyAgent]

Its not information.

I will add "unless it fits perfectly within the context of my narrative"

[pjclarke]

Lol. That's a pretty important point considering that no one cares about correlation.

Patrick Moore cared enough to lie about it, which is what prompted your intervention.

That's no really a good analogy, is it. There is scientific proof that some substances are carcinogenic, and as such it's not a huge leap to suppose that smoking could trigger cancer.

Its is actually remarkably hard to prove that a substance causes cancer. You need two human populations, one exposed and a control group with no exposure, where the first group develops a statistically significant greater incidence of cancer. Even then you can never rule out cross-contamination, self-selection, other lifestyle factors and biases. So what you generally get is overwhelming evidence rather than proof. This is why '95%' is usually taken as the confidence level for 'proof', you hardly ever get to 100%.

On the other hand, there is no proof, or even scientific evidence, to show that catastrophic climate change is anthropogenic. There are only models, which isn't science.

Repeating a false assertion does not make it true, alas. Removing the value judgement of 'catastrophic', just as some substances are shown to be carcinogenic, so we know that we have increased the abundance of various greenhouse gases and we know, from calculations and observations, that this has placed the planet in a radiative imbalance, the amplitude of which we know to within +/- 10%.

The null hypothesis, from the Laws of Thermodynamics is that objects with a radiative imbalance must get warmer. No models needed.

If you know a better means of forecasting the future, without using some kind of model, I for one, would love to hear about it. Tea-leaves?

[pjclarke]

Reminded of this one for some reason

An accountant and an actuary are sharing a train carriage. The accountant looks up from his Ft and observes 'There are 17 black and white cows in that field'. The actuary stirs and looks out, and replies 'They are black and white on this side'.

Maybe you had to work in insurance to get it ...

[DodgyAgent]

Patrick Moore cared enough to lie about it, which is what prompted your intervention.


Its is actually remarkably hard to prove that a substance causes cancer. You need two human populations, one exposed and a control group with no exposure, where the first group develops a statistically significant greater incidence of cancer. Even then you can never rule out cross-contamination, self-selection, other lifestyle factors and biases. So what you generally get is overwhelming evidence rather than proof. This is why '95%' is usually taken as the confidence level for 'proof', you hardly ever get to 100%.



Repeating a false assertion does not make it true, alas. Removing the value judgement of 'catastrophic', just as some substances are shown to be carcinogenic, so we know that we have increased the abundance of various greenhouse gases and we know, from calculations and observations, that this has placed the planet in a radiative imbalance, the amplitude of which we know to within +/- 10%.

The null hypothesis, from the Laws of Thermodynamics is that objects with a radiative imbalance must get warmer. No models needed.

If you know a better means of forecasting the future, without using some kind of model, I for one, would love to hear about it. Tea-leaves?

What exactly was a lie in his video?

[pjclarke]

What exactly was a lie in his video?

The bits where his lips were moving.

• The Roman and Mediaeval Warm Periods were warmer than today.
• CO2 and temperatures do not show a strong correlation
• Temperatures over the last 2 decades have been essentially flat.
• I am a Co-Founder of Greenpeace.