Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread

Cal wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the BBC can air as much pro-creationism and pro-MMR vaccination propaganda as it wants, as long as it makes sure to broadcast an equal amount of pro-evolution, anti-MMR content. That's how things should work with the BBC.

Moggy wrote:So actual science doesn't count, it just has to give every viewpoint (no matter how incorrect) an equal airing?

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:So actual science doesn't count, it just has to give every viewpoint (no matter how incorrect) an equal airing?

I happen to think the science does count, in fact that the science is king. That's why I can't sign up to creationism; the scientific proof simply doesn't support it in any possible way. Add to that the fact that I can see fossils, the geological record, for myself and I find science, in that case, absolutely triumphs. The evidence is there for all to see. But if someone wants to believe the world is only 6000 years old, that's cool. I can see the science proves them wrong.

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:So actual science doesn't count, it just has to give every viewpoint (no matter how incorrect) an equal airing?

I happen to think the science does count, in fact that the science is king. That's why I can't sign up to creationism; the scientific proof simply doesn't support it in any possible way. Add to that the fact that I can see fossils, the geological record, for myself and I find science, in that case, absolutely triumphs. The evidence is there for all to see. But if someone wants to believe the world is only 6000 years old, that's cool. I can see the science proves them wrong.

CAGW enjoys no such luxury. It remains, according to its number one fan (the IPCC), an unproven hypothesis. It's an idea. So far, twenty years down the line, thirty years after global cooling and worries about the ozone hole fell off the agenda, that's all it remains. And there is plenty of science on both sides of the debate - something the BBC likes to forget.

Moggy wrote:Can you not see how that would give people a skewed view and lead people to believe that Evolution v Intelligent Design was an actual argument, rather than a dressed up Science v Religion debate?

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:Can you not see how that would give people a skewed view and lead people to believe that Evolution v Intelligent Design was an actual argument, rather than a dressed up Science v Religion debate?

Can you see how the BBC deliberately excluding dissenting views on an unproven hypothesis might lead people to assume said hypothesis is a fact?

Cal wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the BBC can air as much pro-creationism and pro-MMR vaccination propaganda as it wants, as long as it makes sure to broadcast an equal amount of pro-evolution, anti-MMR content.

That's how things should work with the BBC.

That's what it was originally Chartered (mandated) to do. Then it re-wrote the rules and introduced the notion of 'due' impartiality.

Fizheuer Zieheuer wrote:

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:Can you not see how that would give people a skewed view and lead people to believe that Evolution v Intelligent Design was an actual argument, rather than a dressed up Science v Religion debate?

Can you see how the BBC deliberately excluding dissenting views on an unproven hypothesis might lead people to assume said hypothesis is a fact?

Show that it's unproven, considering all the evidence and not just your own.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Working Group I dealt with the "Physical Science Basis of Climate Change." The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was published on 2 February 2007[47] and revised on 5 February 2007.[48] There was also a 2 February 2007 press release.[49] The full WGI report[50] was published in March. The key conclusions of the SPM were that:[47]

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
• Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
• Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).[48]
• The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
• World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
• Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1–23 in) [table 3].
• There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves, and heavy rainfall.
• There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones, and extreme high tides.
• Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium. [But will it be 'catastrophic' or benign?]
• Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years. [But is it 'catastrophic' or benign?]

The IPCC is currently starting to outline its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) which will be finalized in 2014.

Cal wrote:

Fizheuer Zieheuer wrote:

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:Can you not see how that would give people a skewed view and lead people to believe that Evolution v Intelligent Design was an actual argument, rather than a dressed up Science v Religion debate?

Can you see how the BBC deliberately excluding dissenting views on an unproven hypothesis might lead people to assume said hypothesis is a fact?

Show that it's unproven, considering all the evidence and not just your own.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Working Group I dealt with the "Physical Science Basis of Climate Change." The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was published on 2 February 2007[47] and revised on 5 February 2007.[48] There was also a 2 February 2007 press release.[49] The full WGI report[50] was published in March. The key conclusions of the SPM were that:[47]

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
• Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
• Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).[48]
• The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
• World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
• Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1–23 in) [table 3].
• There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves, and heavy rainfall.
• There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones, and extreme high tides.
• Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium. [But will it be 'catastrophic' or benign?]
• Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years. [But is it 'catastrophic' or benign?]

The IPCC is currently starting to outline its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) which will be finalized in 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergover ... CC_reports

I see no proof in any of that, merely projections, likelihoods and levels of confidence, as well as few slyly worded assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Slartibartfast wrote:Seriously, Cal? Seriously?

Slartibartfast wrote:Seriously, Cal? Seriously?

TimeGhost wrote:To be fair to Cal, he tried to show that it's unproven (highlighting the word 'probability' is not clever, though), then gets slammed because there is no absolute proof in most of science! Arrgh.

Hexx wrote:

TimeGhost wrote:To be fair to Cal, he tried to show that it's unproven (highlighting the word 'probability' is not clever, though), then gets slammed because there is no absolute proof in most of science! Arrgh.

No. Cal's being his normal self.

Lots of things are are not proven. Most science isn't proved. That's how it fundementally works (although somethings can be disproved, which is what I think FZ means by unproven rather than "not proved"). As you've rightly pointed out - that's science. And yet he's trying to prove something widely admitted, and then claims victory when he does so.

And this has been explained to the him endlessly. Despite this fact he still seems to think "Yeah well. You can't prove it" is something crippling counter argument.

For example the weather report tomorrow here is for rain. Is it proven that it'll rain? No. But on the basis of scienctific modelling it's likely to rain (It also can't be disproven at this point).

There's also Mystic Marge. Who thinks that tomorrow it's going to rain Green Tomatoes and Ham on the basis that she feels a strange vibration from her Uranus..,Is that proven? Nope. Can it be disproven at this point? Also nope.

The normal rational personal would say that the one with overwelming logic, consistency and a rational approach should be conveyed.

Cal says "both are unproven and therefore equally valid. Why did the BBC spend 10minutes on this "Weather Report", and not give Mystic Marge any time? Institutional bias!

Because he's a banana split who wears ignorance as a badge of pride, yet is still arrogant enough to insist inflicting ignorance on people. (Seriously. Go through the thread and see how many people have tried to politely explain this to him. But here he is. Repeating the message. Shout it enough and you'll drown out other viewpoints). The mear fact that this shite stain, laughable "discussion" blog thread is still facilitated is beyond a joke

Cal wrote:Nobody feels the need to comment on 'TwentyEightGate', then?

How very odd.