Yes, the book recognises that but then goes onto say that the "starting point" facts, or, "what is known" are/is then revised. Science is all about revising - the book includes Karl Popper's philosophies obviously? The starting point "facts' are up for questioning and revision. Again and again and again.
We see this again and again. One minute 'sceptics' know that it's all GCRs, the Sun, and anything else which isn't CO2 and the next minute our knowledge is so weak and flawed that we don't know anything. All this flailing about looking for the last floating straw in a torrent of evidence is quite amusing.
* The stuff that the sceptics are sceptical about.
Edited by user 01 May 2012 07:12:08(UTC)
| Reason: and
the starting point "facts' are up for questioning and revision. Again and again and again.
I wonder how you find time to achieve anything on that basis Dave. Every morning when you open your eyes you need to estalish who you are, whether the laws that describe gravity, light, sound and so on are still valid. Whether what you put in the fridge last night is still what it was....
Just when I think I understand how you are approaching this you come out with another bizarre statement. Maybe you don't mean it like this, maybe you are just debatiing yourself into a peculiar corner?
Surely you question something when it becomes apparent that it is no longer producing the correct answer or explanation. Which leads us straight back to the issue of how much you accept and how much you challenge/question.
The pursuit of knowledge is admirable. Some of this is rather less so.
The sentences I quoted in my post.
Putting facts in inverted commas, as if to imply that there are no facts - particularly when you suggest they are for 'revision' and should be 'questioned again and again and again"
Is that alright?
More CO2 molecules in the atmosphere cause more energy to be retained causing the temperature of the air to rise
My point is, as per my previous post, that some principles, theories and facts do not need to be challenged ad infinitum. The issue is what do you decide does not require challenge and what does.
Which in some ways brings us back to Ulric's point and something to which I have alluded before. If you pick the latest fad from the lunatic sceptic camp and regurgitate it here that doesn't invalidate the mainstream science. Furthermore, by repeatedly trawling the sceptic and denier fringe for titbits to playback here you and others do the case for scepticism a disservice.
We are just old Boars Ulric
We just have tired old 'rising temp trend globally' or 'GHG's are able to warm our world' or 'The Arctic is melting to the point that it is impacting N.H. circulation patterns'........... they get a new Banner every week! Last week was Himalayan glaciers .....'till they realised how that just helped put Mass loss of Greenland/West Antatctica ice sheets into focus
In some ways they do help us remind folk of the science, and observations of climate, that form the main body of study today?
Thats why I stick with Solar output, it's the main driver of all things climatic imo. I do think your barking up the wrong tree with regards to CO2 molecules. A theory that works well in a lab only!
That's fine but I know that you know that the Earth would not be habitable without the presence of GHGs to absorb some of the sun's energy. Therefore in accepting the role of the sun you are, de facto, accepting the greenhouse effect.
In accepting the greenhouse effect you must also, inevitably and logically, accept that changes in GHG concentrations affect the Earth's temperature and climate.
Get out of that one!
Edited by user 30 April 2012 17:16:59(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
Yes, I thought he came up with an elegant means of accepting that the greenhouse effect is entirely valid and clear to observe.
Or is this one of the facts you would like to re-write?
Edit: I don't believe Ulric has posted his answer yet.
Edited by user 01 May 2012 07:25:07(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
Well it would help if you listed the issues you think are contentious.
Oh really Stephen, whoever said that?
So you cherry pick the lowest year in the record and then express mock surprise when we haven't got that low this year.
Of course you are never going to observe that of the last 260 weeks only 4 weeks have been above the mean, are you - because that would undermine your questionable stance on AGW and Arctic ice.
Perhaps you might want to acknowledge that only 1.5% of daily values above average is significant. Or perhaps not, knowing your capacity for self-delusion.
Don't forget you are the one who said an ice free Arctic at the end of the summer melt wouldn't be anything about which to be concerned....
I thought I would pull this to the business end of the thread, as Stephen failed to respond to my rebuttal of his latest ludicrous comment.
I'm now effectively asking Ulric and Gandalf the question, which science is settled? You have gone out of your way to put substance to and explain the consensus position which may prove correct, at least to a degree, but, nevertheless, what science is settled and will endure, Tom?
Edited by user 01 May 2012 09:02:39(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
I thought I'd throw this into the mix....
I'm not a qualified scientist (Physics or Chemistry) so I can't definitely say that what is written here is false or otherwise.
Is there any mileage in the view that the science is flawed?
If you see the article here -
..................... there is an intertesting observation on stratospheric temperatures - or at least the author thinks it is interesting. Stephen might have something to say aboiut it?
Well aside from it being almost two years old and blatantly from a denier website....
I just love the opening, not contentious, positioning statement.....
Sensing that their sky-is-falling theory is crumbling under scientific scrutiny, the always-insecure global warming True Believers are losing their cool, lashing out at critics with a mounting campaign of scurrilous personal attacks, impugning the motives, integrity and mental state of anyone who refuses to genuflect before the high priesthood of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
I'm afraid that invariably i switch off around that point.
You might find this amusing - I had to stop myself laughing loudly...
A classic in deliberate misunderstanding to try to prove a point. I guess it must work if your knowledge of science is pre-school....
And when you've finished the comedy sketch, here is a more useful piece:
I'll just throw this into the mix as well.
The style of my link is the same as your post, the science as incisive. From yours: "Sensing that their sky-is-falling theory is crumbling under scientific scrutiny, the always-insecure global warming True Believers are losing their cool, lashing out at critics with a mounting campaign of scurrilous personal attacks, impugning the motives, integrity and mental state of anyone who refuses to genuflect before the high priesthood of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)." Great stuff, full of sciencyness!
From the article I quote we get a similar style: "Alarmists will tell you that HadCRUT4 is a global temperature record. This isn't entirely correct, as per usual you have to watch the thimble closely with these guys. The part they aren't telling you is that HadCRUT4 is yet another component in a global fraud perpetrated on the free world by a state-funded hierarchy of scientific gatekeepers and their political handlers at the behest of elite power-brokers in the helm of government who may or may not be representing an ancient race of reptiles which have enslaved man and plan to tax them." again, great stuff full of sciencyness!
So, imo, either they're both onto something or they're, just possibly, both utter tosh.
Outcome of investigation into last years Australian 'Death threat emails'.The story was lapped up by The Guardian and others here, I wonder if they'll report this too?http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/pathological-exaggerators-caught-on-death-threats-how-11-rude-emails-became-a-media-blitz/
No , none whatever, the science has stood the test of time. It doesn't mean its the last word on the subject as recent papers look at the subject again and build on the past work. The results are not identical but still consistent with the same ideas.
Shocking Four, truly shocking......
In an open society why shouldn't any crackpot send threatening emails to scientists?
I thought the FoI request to see the emails was a nice touch.