• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Claim : "Temperatures could rise over 200 degrees"

Cardinal said:
You didn't understand the equation, did you.
Click to expand...

Did you understand the conclusions more importantly ? The 'experts' already tried and failed to topple the maths or the rebuttal would not have been published
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
Did you understand the conclusions more importantly ? The 'experts' already tried and failed to topple the maths or the rebuttal would not have been published
Click to expand...

No, what you see is a back and forth between people communicating entirely in sines and cosines, and you don't have the background to understand any of it. Yet in spite of that you've staked your entire position with the extreme minority.

Very curious.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
You're not answering my primary question. Why are you, who is not educated or equipped to understand the hard science behind the theory, thoroughly lodged in with the extreme minority?
Click to expand...

Because science doesnt rely on minorities or majorities thats the language of politics it relys on reproduceable results verifiable by its peers and they have tried and failed to discredit this work. Thats embarrassing for the whole hypothesis especially when its conclusions have been borne out by the dismal results of the climate models in question
 
flogger said:
Because science doesnt rely on minorities or majorities thats the language of politics it relys on reproduceable results verifiable by its peers and they have tried and failed to discredit this work. Thats embarrassing for the whole hypothesis especially when its conclusions have been borne out by the dismal results of the climate models in question
Click to expand...

Which might be a valid response if you were equipped to understand the math and science behind the debate, but you're not, so again, why go with the minority?

Imagine that there are two groups of people, group A (which is vastly larger) and group B (a lot smaller). Both groups are arguing in Mandarin (for the sake of this analogy let's assume you don't speak Mandarin). People loitering nearby who speak partial Mandarin tell you that group A very much appears to be winning the argument. Others say group B is. So you then decide to side with Group B.

Does that make any sense?
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Which might be a valid response if you were equipped to understand the math and science behind the debate, but you're not, so again, why go with the minority?
Click to expand...

So you didnt understand or get the point of my earlier response then ?
 
flogger said:
So you didnt understand or get the point of my earlier response then ?
Click to expand...

Yes I did, and again it would have been a fine point if you knew math.

Which you don't. At least, not enough to matter as far as this discussion is concerned.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes I did, and again it would have been a fine point if you knew math.

Which you don't. At least, not enough to matter as far as this discussion is concerned.
Click to expand...

Is a comprehension of a papers conclusions automatically beyond you then ? Did you read them ? If you have then why would you disagree with them based on evidence to date ?

For example I understand the principles behind nuclear weapons but that doesnt automatically mean I can design them. What I do know is that they work and I base that on results just like I do with this paper. This is also compounded by the fact that others within the respective discipline have tried and failed to devalue it.
 
flogger said:
Is a comprehension of a papers conclusions automatically beyond you then ? Did you read them ? If you have then why would you disagree with them based on evidence to date ?

For example I understand the principles behind nuclear weapons but that doesnt automatically mean I can design them. What I do know is that they work and I base that on results just like I do with this paper. This is also compounded by the fact that others have tried and failed to devalue it.
Click to expand...

One side (the majority) has conclusions that point to AGW, the other side, the minority, has conclusions to the contrary. You chose the second side in spite of not being able to understand the math. Why?
 
Cardinal said:
One side (the majority) has conclusions that point to AGW, the other side, the minority, has conclusions to the contrary. You chose the second side in spite of not being able to understand the math. Why?
Click to expand...

Because its conclusions are borne out by the results and 100% climate model failure bears witness to that as was illustrated for you earlier
 
flogger said:
Because its conclusions are borne out by the results and 100% climate model failure bears witness to that as was illustrated for you earlier
Click to expand...

According to the conclusions of one side, and not at all the other. None of which you understand.
 
flogger said:
I'm happy to let others be the judge of that
Click to expand...

These "others" you chose to side with are the minority, in a discussion you don't understand because the discussion is in a language you don't speak.

So why did you pick these "others," exactly?

And don't say "it's the conclusions." Both sides have their conclusions.
 
Cardinal said:
These "others" you chose to side with are the minority, in a discussion you don't understand because the discussion is in a language you don't speak.

So why did you pick these "others," exactly?

And don't say "it's the conclusions." Both sides have their conclusions.
Click to expand...

I've made my point about this earlier and explained it to you in some detail already. In science opinion doesnt matter results do
 
Cardinal said:
Which might be a valid response if you were equipped to understand the math and science behind the debate, but you're not, so again, why go with the minority?

Imagine that there are two groups of people, group A (which is vastly larger) and group B (a lot smaller). Both groups are arguing in Mandarin (for the sake of this analogy let's assume you don't speak Mandarin). People loitering nearby who speak partial Mandarin tell you that group A very much appears to be winning the argument. Others say group B is. So you then decide to side with Group B.

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
Nicely put.



I might add in reference to this graph which Flogger posted that it's extremely dubious that any climate models can be accurately represented by a single thin line as all of those are. This has been pointed out before, of course.
 
Mithrae said:
Nicely put.



I might add in reference to this graph which Flogger posted that it's extremely dubious that any climate models can be accurately represented by a single thin line as all of those are. This has been pointed out before, of course.
Click to expand...

Take it up with this guy then because hes the one responsible for the compilation of the graph and so he clearly disagrees :roll:

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
 
Cardinal said:
I wonder if Stephen Hawking ever has to worry about how he writes articles for fear that morons are going to take everything he says out of context. The IPCC here was being extremely naive if they didn't foresee how the 200 degree rise, whatever the context or legitimate point they were making, would play out in denialist blogs.
Click to expand...



It's quite likely that they did not foresee anything.

They have a pretty weak track record on predictions.
 
Cardinal said:
It's amazing how you and I can agree on this one simple fact (the media sensationalizes) and arrive at such wildly different conclusions from there.

Therefore, if the media sensationalizes, and you get your facts from the media, maybe your facts aren't quite spot on?
Click to expand...



Why would the IPCC even contemplate such a wildly impossible idea? Have they taken a position on the number of UFO's that will land and greet the UN next year?
 
Cardinal said:
That's a neat trick considering that it's the scientists who are saying that AGW is real. Are you a scientist?
Click to expand...



Can you cite the Scientific organization that has raised this notion to the level of being a scientific theory or has presented an official Hypothesis including the test to falsify the Hypothesis?
 
Cardinal said:
Where are you getting your "science?" Is it from denialist blogs? If not, what are your qualifications? What is your education? What is your background that allows you to argue with scientists who have been trained and working in climatology for years?

Hypothetical question: You find a rash on your chest and it's not going away on its own. In fact, it seems to be getting worse. Do you

a)Ask your friends for their advice on Facebook
b)order remedies from alternativehealing.com
c)go to a doctor.
Click to expand...



Your analogy is an accurate parallel only if you have contracted the rash in 1590 in central Europe.

The state of the art in climatology is about on a par with the state of medicine in that time and place.
 
Cardinal said:
And where is that science? Where are you getting it from?

Your car breaks down. It looks like it might be the engine. Do you

a)Try to fix it yourself because you took a shop class in high school
b)Take it to your dry cleaner
c)Take it to a mechanic
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to compare the hobby of climatology to other real trades or sciences?

Climatology is to science what Astrology is to science.
 
flogger said:
Take it up with this guy then because hes the one responsible for the compilation of the graph and so he clearly disagrees :roll:

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
Click to expand...
He's certainly qualified to express his own views on the matter, on his own pages or in scientific literature. But that does not automatically make his presentation of others' views on his website accurate or reliable. One of the more notable examples of his track record regarding others' views is in the case of evolution where he adopts the fringe position (as he does in climate science) and falsely portrays the scientific majority's (and in this case much more qualified) views as "classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith." Since he's apparently not shy about misrepresenting majority scientific views outside his field, why should we assume that he is any fairer or more objective in his representation of majority scientific views on his own website?

Surely you, who are keener than most to question, smear or mock any source you don't agree with - off the top of my head; Wikipedia, scepticalscience.com, realclimate.com, the IPCC and some 20-plus national academies of sciences - can understand why this should be a cause for concern? And interestingly, since you bring it up, while Spencer personally may never have been asked to perform any service for any oil company, he is one of the nine board members of the Marshall Institute, which had received over $700,000 in funding from that nasty ol' Exxon-Mobil.
 
Mithrae said:
He's certainly qualified to express his own views on the matter, on his own pages or in scientific literature. But that does not automatically make his presentation of others' views on his website accurate or reliable. One of the more notable examples of his track record regarding others' views is in the case of evolution where he adopts the fringe position (as he does in climate science) and falsely portrays the scientific majority's (and in this case much more qualified) views as "classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith." Since he's apparently not shy about misrepresenting majority scientific views outside his field, why should we assume that he is any fairer or more objective in his representation of majority scientific views on his own website?
Click to expand...

His employer NASA obviously disagrees. Provide evidence that Spencer has misrepresented any plot on this graph otherwise this is just smearing

Surely you, who are keener than most to question, smear and mock any source you don't agree with - off the top of my head; Wikipedia, scepticalscience.com, realclimate.com, the IPCC and some 20-plus national academies of sciences - can understand why this should be a cause for concern? And interestingly, since you bring it up, while Spencer personally may never have been asked to perform any service for any oil company, he is one of the nine board members of the Marshall Institute, which had received over $700,000 in funding from that nasty ol' Exxon-Mobil
Click to expand...

Provide evidence that Spencer has personally recieved funding from Exxon to distort his work at their behest otherwise this is just more smearing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom