Global Warming

[evo]

fair enough. Ill give it a rest.

:fing32

 

[Brodders17]

Dude, we all know Livers thought process can be a bit whack at times, but is it really necessary to ad-hom him page after page in every thread?

It was funny the first hundred times or so.

while i agree with the sentiment, in GW's defence it's not like the actual topic is really up for debate, is it?
if this thread doesnt resort to personal attacks there isnt really much else to talk about.

 

[AngryAnt]

if this thread doesnt resort to personal attacks there isnt really much else to talk about.

give that man a cigar

 

[Liverpool]

Clutching at straws Livers, where are all these dodgy studies that have slipped through the cracks? Producing a study based on acupuncture does sweet FA to strengthen your argument. If you're genuinely interested in the science, produce some studies from reputable climatologists.

Its just an example of how something that is deemed "peer reviewed" can actually be passed as bona-fide purely because the reviewers are in agreement with the argument, even though the evidence in the report may say something totally contradictory.

Whether its acupuncture, brain surgery, or climate change....the process of peer-review should be the same, and thats what I am merely questioning.

There are a few posters who think that if something is 'peer reviewed' then its all of a sudden, fact.


I think it was Rudd who thought of climate change as "the greatest moral challenge of our time"....then why is Gillard quite happily cutting the budget for the environment, especially around renewable energies and the biodiversity fund?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Its just an example of how something that is deemed "peer reviewed" can actually be passed as bona-fide purely because the reviewers are in agreement with the argument, even though the evidence in the report may say something totally contradictory.

Whether its acupuncture, brain surgery, or climate change....the process of peer-review should be the same, and thats what I am merely questioning.

There are a few posters who think that if something is 'peer reviewed' then its all of a sudden, fact.


I think it was Rudd who thought of climate change as "the greatest moral challenge of our time"....then why is Gillard quite happily cutting the budget for the environment, especially around renewable energies and the biodiversity fund?

Did you read the responses of the authors and the editor Livers, that comment reads as though you didn't? There was no failure of the "peer review" system. As Ant has pointed out there are tiers of Journals just as there are of any publication. The Australian and the The Truth (sadly gone) are both newspapers.....but that doesn't mean the quality of the journalism is the same does it? There is an essential point here that you've either missed or are intentionally misrepresenting. It isn't the act of publishing that makes the research valid. It is the response of the community of scientists to that research. Can they replicate the results or use the conclusions to further their own research? If it is dud research it will be discarded by the community of peers and never cited and research that invalidates its conclusions will appear. That is the essence of why the system works. The article you cited was about the author's dislike for acupuncture (that I share) not about the quality of the research itself.

And then a bit of logical gymnastics turns it into a shot at the PM? I give it an 8.5...I don't think you stuck the landing but the difficulty rating boosted the final score. If they weren't cutting they'd be fiscally irresponsible. If they cut in some areas and not others they'd be "pandering to the tree-huggers" or in a "coalition with the Greens" I imagine.

 

[Liverpool]

Did you read the responses of the authors and the editor Livers, that comment reads as though you didn't? There was no failure of the "peer review" system. As Ant has pointed out there are tiers of Journals just as there are of any publication. The Australian and the The Truth (sadly gone) are both newspapers.....but that doesn't mean the quality of the journalism is the same does it? There is an essential point here that you've either missed or are intentionally misrepresenting. It isn't the act of publishing that makes the research valid. It is the response of the community of scientists to that research.

Totally agree that its not the act of publishing of the research that makes it valid, it can be the shoddy way some articles are peer-reviewed and then no action taken.

If you are doing a study on climate change and come to the conclusion that it is man's fault, and your study is peer-reviewed by scientists in the same field of study who also agree that climate change is caused by man, then what do you think the outcome of your study will be?
I'm tipping you will get a quite favourable peer-review.
Does that mean your study is correct, true, and now fact?
No, it just means that the scientists who reviewed your study agree with it and its conclusions.
It doesn't mean we should stop researching and take your study as the be all, end all of climate change.

And don't be fooled by the 'type' of publication it is published in...there have been studies in renowned publications, like the British Medical Journal, where studies have been published after a so-called peer-review and have been found to be quite invalid.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34518/title/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/


And as for the PM...well, the thread now is more about scientific politics rather than global warming...however, it should take nothing away from an ALP PM saying that global wamring is the greatest moral challenge of our time and an ALP PM slashing funding to counter this challenge.
Don't you find that hypocritical?
I would have thought that, if it wasn't a beat up and a big scare tactic from Rudd, and the ALP truly believe in this...then some things would be non-negotiable.

 

[Azza]

I don't think you understand the fundamentals of the system you try to question to justify your own beliefs.

Totally agree that its not the act of publishing of the research that makes it valid, it can be the shoddy way some articles are peer-reviewed and then no action taken.

If you are doing a study on climate change and come to the conclusion that it is man's fault, and your study is peer-reviewed by scientists in the same field of study who also agree that climate change is caused by man, then what do you think the outcome of your study will be?
I'm tipping you will get a quite favourable peer-review.
Does that mean your study is correct, true, and now fact?
No, it just means that the scientists who reviewed your study agree with it and its conclusions.

Neither. It means that the methods used are considered to be of sufficient quality to draw meaningful conclusions and the implications of the study are sufficiently significant for the field. Ongoing research may validate or invalidate the conclusions, if the latter the reasons will be examined - including whether the methods really were appropriate. The publication gives you a place at the table in a conversation, it's not a statement set in stone. In the case of global warming, 97% of people deemed good enough scientists to join the conversation believe in AGM. 3% of those scientists do not. People like you, Bolt, other journos, Monckton, and the Heartland Institute (and I'm guessing every other Pre-ender) don't even rate a voice at the table.

 

[AngryAnt]

Totally agree that its not the act of publishing of the research that makes it valid, it can be the shoddy way some articles are peer-reviewed and then no action taken.

LOL wut?

If you are doing a study on climate change and come to the conclusion that it is man's fault, and your study is peer-reviewed by scientists in the same field of study who also agree that climate change is caused by man, then what do you think the outcome of your study will be?
I'm tipping you will get a quite favourable peer-review.

No. They assess your methodology, your empirical evidence, and your analysis. They don't approve an article just because they happen to agree with your conclusions because they tally with their own opinions, or other studies.

Does that mean your study is correct, true, and now fact?
No, it just means that the scientists who reviewed your study agree with it and its conclusions.
It doesn't mean we should stop researching and take your study as the be all, end all of climate change.

No, it means that your study is methodologically and analytically sound. Your hypotheses can still be disproved or superseded by other scientific studies.

And don't be fooled by the 'type' of publication it is published in...there have been studies in renowned publications, like the British Medical Journal, where studies have been published after a so-called peer-review and have been found to be quite invalid.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34518/title/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/

I suggest you read the article you posted in full, including the detailed comments below. It doesn't actually say what you think it does. I live in hope that one day you might show some sign of understanding the scientific method, but then I am an eternal optimist.

 

[Liverpool]

Ongoing research may validate or invalidate the conclusions,

Thank you.
That's what I said probably not as succinctly as you put it....I put it this way:

"There are a few posters who think that if something is 'peer reviewed' then its all of a sudden, fact" and "It doesn't mean we should stop researching and take your study as the be all, end all of climate change."

A couple of posters have mentioned that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made.
I am tipping if 1% of this group found evidence that disagreed with the majority, they would be labelled "deniers" and "sceptics" and part of the shunned group.

97% of people deemed good enough scientists to join the conversation believe in AGM. 3% of those scientists do not. People like you, Bolt, other journos, Monckton, and the Heartland Institute (and I'm guessing every other Pre-ender) don't even rate a voice at the table.

A couple of posters have mentioned the credentials of the scientists who don't believe in man-made pollutants being the major cause of global warming...the uneducated go on about people doing TAFE colleges or that they are "scientists" but with no real experience, yet the US Senate back in 2008 (admittedly, maybe some scientists have changed their views since or maybe the list can be expanded? :don't know ) had over 400 scientists on a list:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Some of these scientists have pretty good credentials, I would have thought.

Also, keep in mind that when we are talking about credentials...do we really think Al Gore and his exaggerrated film and photoshopped movies with polar bears drowning are fact too?

Both sides push the envelope regarding their cause, lets face it.

 

[evo]

I don't think you understand the fundamentals of the system you try to question to justify your own beliefs.

Neither. It means that the methods used are considered to be of sufficient quality to draw meaningful conclusions and the implications of the study are sufficiently significant for the field. Ongoing research may validate or invalidate the conclusions, if the latter the reasons will be examined - including whether the methods really were appropriate. The publication gives you a place at the table in a conversation, it's not a statement set in stone. In the case of global warming, 97% of people deemed good enough scientists to join the conversation believe in AGM. 3% of those scientists do not. People like you, Bolt, other journos, Monckton, and the Heartland Institute (and I'm guessing every other Pre-ender) don't even rate a voice at the table.

that's about the size of it.

'In the end one has to trust the "97%" are close to the money. I don't have any problem with the science, after all I'm not a scientist and as you said don't deserve a spot at the table.

What does irk me about the whole thing though is the gross over exageration at times by those in the media, bloggers and some politicians. It is a serious enough issue without all the handwaiving, chicken little stuff. It only turns the average laymen off, thus feeding into the Bolta paradigm.

 

[tigersnake]

that's about the size of it.

'In the end one has to trust the "97%" are close to the money. I don't have any problem with the science, after all I'm not a scientist and as you said don't deserve a spot at the table.

What does irk me about the whole thing though is the gross over exageration at times by those in the media, bloggers and some politicians. It is a serious enough issue without all the handwaiving, chicken little stuff. It only turns the average laymen off, thus feeding into the Bolta paradigm.

Missing the point, and failing to understand the politics of what is actually happening. Often predictions are made with a wide range. Firstly, The deniers, conservatives, right wingers, whatever, seize on the extremes of the predictions to try shock and discredit the whole scientific basis. For example, a study might say we predict sea levels to rise by between 10cm and 2m within 20 to 200 years, the Murdoch headline is 'crackpot scientist says Melbourne CBD will flood by 2030', or worse. Second, a lot of the predictions that were considered at the extreme end 10-20 years ago are turning out to be thereabouts, do you see the Murdoch press coming out with headlines 'Scientists were too conservative in 1990'. Never gunna happen.

I reckon what you're really saying here evo, is that some of these predictions are nasty and do not bode well for the future, and you don't want to hear them, which I can understand perfectly. If the average leyman gets turned off by what might be the truth, (remembering that predictions are always made with a broad range), that is, the worst case scenario happens, what are you gunna do? Do scientists say, 'well sea level might rise by a metre in 50 years, but we better not tell anyone 'cos they might get turned off'. ?

 

[Liverpool]

What does irk me about the whole thing though is the gross over exageration at times by those in the media, bloggers and some politicians. It is a serious enough issue without all the handwaiving, chicken little stuff. It only turns the average laymen off, thus feeding into the Bolta paradigm.

Spot on mate and what I said in my previous post.

If the "science" is so adamant and there is enough proof showing global warming is caused by man...then let the so-called facts speak for themselves without all the 'New York will be underwater by 2020' doomsday stuff.

The fact that Al Gore and others need to go down this route says to me that they are not totally convinced with their own evidence if they have to resort to such tricks and skullduggery.

I reckon what you're really saying here evo, is that some of these predictions are nasty and do not bode well for the future, and you don't want to hear them, which I can understand perfectly. If the average leyman gets turned off by what might be the truth, (remembering that predictions are always made with a broad range), that is, the worst case scenario happens, what are you gunna do? Do scientists say, 'well sea level might rise by a metre in 50 years, but we better not tell anyone 'cos they might get turned off'. ?

But sea levels might not rise by a metre in 50 years.

Its o.k saying that scientists are giving a worst case scenario over a broad range of predictions....but when these are purported as facts and then pushed onto Governments to make policy from, and spend taxpayers money then to act on it...thats when we have a problem.

We're spending money then on a worst case scenario of a broad range prediction.

 

[evo]

I reckon what you're really saying here evo, is that some of these predictions are nasty and do not bode well for the future, and you don't want to hear them...

this is exactly the sort of hyperbole I'm talking about.

Thanks for telling me what i think

 

[tigersnake]

Spot on mate and what I said in my previous post.

If the "science" is so adamant and there is enough proof showing global warming is caused by man...then let the so-called facts speak for themselves without all the 'New York will be underwater by 2020' doomsday stuff.

The fact that Al Gore and others need to go down this route says to me that they are not totally convinced with their own evidence if they have to resort to such tricks and skullduggery.

But sea levels might not rise by a metre in 50 years.

Its o.k saying that scientists are giving a worst case scenario over a broad range of predictions....but when these are purported as facts and then pushed onto Governments to make policy from, and spend taxpayers money then to act on it...thats when we have a problem.

We're spending money then on a worst case scenario of a broad range prediction.

Thats not whats happening. The policies that are happening are on the basis of best case scenario, not worst, or even OK. There are valid pragmatic political reasons for that happening, electoral scepticism due to spoiler campaigns/ ignorance, entrenched economic/ industrial systems that can't be tweaked quickly, let alone unravelled. But isn't the responsible course of action to have at least a tenth of an eyeball on the worst case scenario? Its common sense. Most fire escapes never get used.

 

[tigersnake]

this is exactly the sort of hyperbole I'm talking about.

Thanks for telling me what i think

You didn't answer the question. Anti-climate change forces seize on bad scenarios, regardless of validity, and paint them as ludicrous or invalid. People don't want to hear it. How should science combat that? Pretend the research didn't suggest it? Burn the data? Its ridiculous.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

that's about the size of it.

'In the end one has to trust the "97%" are close to the money. I don't have any problem with the science, after all I'm not a scientist and as you said don't deserve a spot at the table.

What does irk me about the whole thing though is the gross over exageration at times by those in the media, bloggers and some politicians. It is a serious enough issue without all the handwaiving, chicken little stuff. It only turns the average laymen off, thus feeding into the Bolta paradigm.

Yup. Too true. I completely support the science but I wish the hyperbole wasn't quite so prevalent, I really wish Flannery would just go away. That said Livers method is to prolong the argument so.as to legitimise the negative POV. I just want to make sure that the counter argument is always put lest an unformed guest think the science is not well founded.

 

[tigergollywog]

You didn't answer the question. Anti-climate change forces seize on bad scenarios, regardless of validity, and paint them as ludicrous or invalid. People don't want to hear it. How should science combat that? Pretend the research didn't suggest it? Burn the data? Its ridiculous.

precisely Dr Snake.

If the "science" is so adamant and there is enough proof showing global warming is caused by man...then let the so-called facts speak for themselves without all the 'New York will be underwater by 2020' doomsday stuff.

So let me try get this logic straight Mr.Liverpool.

A bunch of scientists, or "scientists", whichever the case may be, find something that COULD cure cancer in the next 20 years. According to your logic, they dont publish? We all just get a really nice surprise in 20 years?

I just cant follow how you think. Help me out

 

[Liverpool]

A bunch of scientists, or "scientists", whichever the case may be, find something that COULD cure cancer in the next 20 years. According to your logic, they dont publish? We all just get a really nice surprise in 20 years?

COULD cure cancer? or WILL cure cancer?

There is a big difference.

The global warming lobby, including some posters on here have claimed...'the science is in and there is no argument'....its all over, done and dusted, no questions need to be asked now...97% of scientists say that global warming is caused by man. Fact. Move on and fix it.
They are more or less stating that man WILL cause global warming. Not could. Not might. Will.
Throw in a few doomsday scenarios (or to use Tigersnake's language, "broad predictions" :cutelaugh ), such as New York will be under water by 2020 or penguins will be extinct within 3 years. Add a few photos of polar bears balancing on a small iceberg (taking care not to get the other few bears on the bigger iceberg less than 50 metres away in the shot) and you have your proof that we're all doomed and its all our own fault.

There is no 'could' in this predicament according to these people.
Its why your analogy is flawed.

 

[AngryAnt]

No point debating Livers on science or scientific method, he'll just disregard any critique and trot out the same tired old misunderstandings in the next round.

 

[tigergollywog]

Yep. Im done (cue the little wavy emoticon or something).