This is what science is

[XFool]

Uncertainty is something that many people find difficult to deal with and gets latched onto by both the Deniers and the extreme gloom merchants.

Interesting point.

[hiriskpaul]

I am sure I read somewhere that it was asymmetric molecules that were greenhouse gases. Perhaps I assumed an "all".

That may well be the case, I don't know and I don't know to what extent SO2 absorbs in the thermal IR, so certainly would not dismiss the idea. A fair amount of SO2 gets in to the atmosphere from coal/oil fired power stations, but it is very short lived and does not build up, so just by the fact that there is so little of it up there at any one time may be the reason it is not considered to be a greenhouse gas. Not that there are not plenty of problems with putting SO2 into the atmosphere...

I was wrong about SO2 not "reflecting" by the way - it does lead to the formation of sulphate aerosols, which reflect incoming solar radiation and so act to cool the atmosphere.

[TopOnePercent]

Well, as you appear to have little or no interest in science, I can't imagine why, having stumbled across it on here, you seem so passionately concerned!

A sweeping assumption on your part based on nought but your own ignorance, unfortunately. Perhaps if you didn't so doggedly play the man rather than the ball, you'd seem more credible?

TOP, I cannot recollect you making a single post on the UK TMF science board. Am I mistaken? And, AFAIK, your only interest on LMF has been wrt GW 'scepticism', as it is usually called - mainly by self appointed GW 'sceptics'.

Frankly, for several reasons and like others, I am myself extremely sceptical about the majority of self professed GW sceptics.

The TMF science board was plagued with virtue signalling believers to the point that discussion of any actual science was lost in the noise. I have higher hopes here, though half of the threads have suffered the same fate already. There's a separate board for matters of faith, which is where AGW theories are better kept.

Its not scepticism really, is it? There's nothing to be sceptical about because there's not enough credible evidence to have established any form of rational position about which to be sceptical. AGW is purely an article of faith. It is not science.

Until we get the mea culpa the CRU hack so conclusively proved is required, and an admission that the science isn't even indicative let alone settled, along with a root and branch clear out of those caught brazenly misrepresenting evidence and destroying data such that it may not be questioned (hello hockey team), then you'll not see any real science done in this subject matter.

Environmental science has still not reached the maturity and credibility of even economics, because at least with economics people can accept that there is more than one school of thought. Achieve that, and you might start to belong in places of science, but until then, it really is nought more than blind faith and gullibility.

[Sorcery]

There's a separate board for matters of faith, which is where AGW theories are better kept.

Well you could look at absorption lines with an appropriate spectrometer and maybe experiment with different gas mixtures?
I don't think that is the uncertainty though. To me it's how does it work out in our world? A world where convection, advection, night/day summer/winter, water transitioning into 3 states within the atmosphere, non-anthro life having a go at getting what it wants (plants & plankton like CO2), cloud unknowns, chaotic systems, lapse rates (and how dry) + whatever I forgot, interact that makes the uncertainty monster and the wicked problem.

It could be a self damping system. It could be a James Lovelock Gaia. It could create a tipping point for humanity.
I find the subject endlessly fascinating. Yes I thought the content of the University of East Anglia email hack troubling and depressing. So did my favourite climate scientist Judith Curry and she does not dismiss the science.

Sorry for the plug yet again but I started visiting her site regularly, as a fairly firm skeptic. I became more mellow and humble ...

[XFool]

The TMF science board was plagued with virtue signalling believers to the point that discussion of any actual science was lost in the noise.

Hah! Proof positive that you never even visited the TMF "science board".

On UK TMF, the science was on Fool Cafe: Science & Sensibility. Climate change wasn't even in the "science board". It was, appropriately enough, in Fool Fringe: Climate Change

Perhaps something like that could be arranged on here?

[hiriskpaul]

Ok, so we have a choice to ponder here. Either:

1) Accept the claims of a bod on the internet, that "AGW is purely an article of faith. It is not science" and "Environmental science has still not reached the maturity and credibility of even economics";

or

2) Bod on internet has no credibility and no obvious knowledge, training or talent for science that would assist bod in making any reliable judgement about AGW or climate science.

This is a tough one.

[SteMiS]

I come back to my original comment. The same level of credibility cannot remotely be attached to analysis and research published in peer reviewed scientific journals and that published in the Daily Mail or even Economist. There's a good reason why many climate change denier analysis isn't published in peer reviewed scientific journals and that's because it wouldn't stand up to the detailed rigorous scrutiny and standards they require. Of course some stuff published in science journals ultimately turns out to be wrong (and a tiny fraction even turns out to be fake) but that is the nature of science; to test theories to destruction.

[tjh290633]

I come back to my original comment. The same level of credibility cannot remotely be attached to analysis and research published in peer reviewed scientific journals and that published in the Daily Mail or even Economist. There's a good reason why many climate change denier analysis isn't published in peer reviewed scientific journals and that's because it wouldn't stand up to the detailed rigorous scrutiny and standards they require.

There is also the point that the referees are likely to be of the opposite persuasion, and therefore getting such alternative views published in a peer reviewed journal requires that it is not one wedded to the conventional view. They have been aired in other respected journals from time to time.

Do you remember the J-curve prognosis? How did that get peer-reviewed, I wonder?

TJH

[anticrank]

I come back to my original comment. The same level of credibility cannot remotely be attached to analysis and research published in peer reviewed scientific journals and that published in the Daily Mail or even Economist. There's a good reason why many climate change denier analysis isn't published in peer reviewed scientific journals and that's because it wouldn't stand up to the detailed rigorous scrutiny and standards they require.

There is also the point that the referees are likely to be of the opposite persuasion, and therefore getting such alternative views published in a peer reviewed journal requires that it is not one wedded to the conventional view. They have been aired in other respected journals from time to time.

TJH

That's a criticism that could be applied to all reputable mainstream journals. As such, it's not a particularly compelling criticism of climate science journals. Creationists, of course, take the same view with respect to life sciences journals. I'm sure that cranks in general take a similarly dim view of whatever mainstream journals they'd like to have their work published in.

There is a lot of evidence supporting AGW. That's what's keeping the alternative view out of the reputable peer-reviewed journals. Just as that -- i.e. the evidence -- is what is keeping creationism out of the reputable life sciences journals. And reactionless drives and free-energy devices out of the reputable physics journals. Of course, to the proponents of quackery, that's not how it looks. To them it looks like conspiracy. Is that how it looks to you?

anticrank

[TopOnePercent]

The TMF science board was plagued with virtue signalling believers to the point that discussion of any actual science was lost in the noise.

Hah! Proof positive that you never even visited the TMF "science board".

On UK TMF, the science was on Fool Cafe: Science & Sensibility. Climate change wasn't even in the "science board". It was, appropriately enough, in Fool Fringe: Climate Change

Perhaps something like that could be arranged on here?

I didn't visit anything on the Fool for several years prior to its closure, save for a brief return to lost, cars n driving, and pmt, but please, by all means, profess an encyclopaedic knowledge of the thread history for every board.

Some people are Christians, some people are Muslims, and some people are Environmentalists. Those of us without a faith are agnostic. It is a sign of the weakness of your faith to forever to seek to convert the agnostic in order to draw comfort from numbers.

[TopOnePercent]

Ok, so we have a choice to ponder here. Either:

1) Accept the claims of a bod on the internet, that "AGW is purely an article of faith. It is not science" and "Environmental science has still not reached the maturity and credibility of even economics";

or

2) Bod on internet has no credibility and no obvious knowledge, training or talent for science that would assist bod in making any reliable judgement about AGW or climate science.

This is a tough one.

As opposed to accepting the claims of a bod on the internet sans credibility who has been brainwashed by his faith, for which no credible evidence has ever existed: in fact ALL evidence and the processes by which it is gathered and evaluated where shown to be fake when the CRU mail dump occurred.

Your responses to date have all the credibility of the CRU faithful. Not a hockey team member by any chance? And why is that? You've made assumptions about my training, talents, scientific qualifications or lack there of, and have responded to a post with nothing more than hyperbole. And that's a theme throughout all of your posts. Where's the rigour? Where's the science? You have no argument and I suspect you know it.

[TopOnePercent]

I come back to my original comment. The same level of credibility cannot remotely be attached to analysis and research published in peer reviewed scientific journals and that published in the Daily Mail or even Economist. There's a good reason why many climate change denier analysis isn't published in peer reviewed scientific journals and that's because it wouldn't stand up to the detailed rigorous scrutiny and standards they require.

There is also the point that the referees are likely to be of the opposite persuasion, and therefore getting such alternative views published in a peer reviewed journal requires that it is not one wedded to the conventional view. They have been aired in other respected journals from time to time.

Do you remember the J-curve prognosis? How did that get peer-reviewed, I wonder?

TJH

Indeed, when the designer of the graph has been allegedly shown to have been "fiddling with the data" to show a desired effect, it cannot be said that any peer review was sufficient. Emails accepting the amendment of data to hide declines rather give the game away unfortunately, as do those that make plain attempts to conceal their raw data where I may not be verified or audited.

The CRU hack brings into doubt the credibility of anyone that ever worked there, and the capability of anyone that peer reviewed their output. It is not the behaviour of scientists, it is not the scientific method, and as a result, it is not science.

With the documented plans to have Professors that disagree with them "ousted", it is no wonder that fewer scientists are willing to decry the hoax and the charlatans perpetuating it, because they do so at the risk of their whole career and reputation.

Given the above well documented facts, one has to wonder how the results finessed, cajoled, and rigged by one group of 'scientists, could tally so neatly with others..... unless, perhaps, they too have been manipulated. Were the results genuine, there should be no fear of publication of raw data, no need to manipulate it to hide indications, and no need to have those professionals who disagree with you sent to Coventry. It is all far too fundamentally dishonest to be called science.

[XFool]

I didn't visit anything on the Fool for several years prior to its closure, save for a brief return to lost, cars n driving, and pmt, but please, by all means, profess an encyclopaedic knowledge of the thread history for every board.

Please do give a link to some posts by yourself on the UK TMF Science & Sensibility board. I for one would be fascinated to briefly inspect your contributions on the subject. Particularly to discover the sources of this "virtue signalling" which you referred to.

[XFool]

I didn't visit anything on the Fool for several years prior to its closure, save for a brief return to lost, cars n driving, and pmt, but please, by all means, profess an encyclopaedic knowledge of the thread history for every board.

Please do give a link to some posts by yourself on the UK TMF Science & Sensibility board. I for one would be fascinated to briefly inspect your contributions on the subject. Particularly to discover the sources of this "virtue signalling" which you referred to.

Well I looked! Couldn't find anything by TopOnePercent on the TMF "science board". So I guess you must have posted under another username, no?

[redsturgeon]

Moderator Message:
redsturgeon: this topic has been reported as having become just a series of personal attacks. Having read it, I would agree. It is now locked.

[TopOnePercent]

Moderator Message:
redsturgeon: this topic has been reported as having become just a series of personal attacks. Having read it, I would agree. It is now locked.

Hi redsturgeon,

I may be reading the page wrong, but it appears to have become unlocked. If this posts I'll report myself by way of notification.

Moderator Message:
Thanks. It does indeed seem unlocked. I've relocked it