IPCC Climate Change Report........ (page 9)

bohm

SBF: The data of the past 20 years do not support global warming.

Step 1, start with the conclusion...

meanwhile people can determine on their own how well that statement applies to a graph like this:

Ben Goldacre may believe in global warming, but my point is that his book Bad Pharma shows just how badly empiricism can go wrong

The root of the problem: When science contradict what you want to be true, you conclude science must (at the same time) be a fallicious way to obtain knowledge about the world, and at the same time that science will vindicate you by adhering to your bias sometimes in the future.

Great thinkin' right there!

"All true science adhere to the bible. Who is to say the many errors of science does not mean it will soon discover the earth is really 6000 years old"

slimboyfat

You are correct I am skeptical about scientific realism for some of the reasons explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism

And I find Pyrrhonian skepticism a more satisfying perspective on the world.

"Nothing can be known, not even this."

bohm

SBF: You are correct I am skeptical about scientific realism for some of the reasons explained here:

The problem is you are more than willing to argue from data when it agrees with you, but when it does not, you resolve to philosophical jargon to allow you to discard data, or crackpot-type arguments like "there might be data in the future that agrees with me".

This thread is just the last example, on other threads you were willing to hold the position that (at the same time) there were no "facts" yet called various things you believed to be true "facts".

I cant think of a more perfect example of slobby and oppertunistic thinking, and you seem to be entirely unaware of it.

besty

@SBF

The data of the past 20 years do not support global warming.

What data are you sepcifically referring to?

bear in mind that the IPCC is a summary document, not primary research, so saying the IPCC got it 'wrong' is not helpful in making your point

slimboyfat

All the predictions that failed to come to pass, primarily the fact that temperatures have not risen in over 15 years.

besty

@SBF

Ben Goldacre may believe in global warming, but my point is that his book Bad Pharma shows just how badly empiricism can go wrong. We have drugs on the market that don't work and we should know don't work, including some that cause real harm. How can this happen in such a rigorous hard scientific field as medicine? Because not all studies conducted are published. Not all promising cures are studied. Not all published studies convey findings in an accurate and helpful way. It is no great leap to wonder if something similar could be happening in climate science, especially with all the financial and institutional interests involved. Empiricism is great in theory, but can be thwarted at so many levels and it often imbues false confidence.

So let me see...you like what Goldacre writes on bad science in pharma <off topic>,...

but you don't like what he writes on good science in climate change <on topic>?

You then make a speculative leap to say bad pharma science here might = bad climate science there.

Every time you make an actual science-based assertion it is shown to be wrong. Thats when these threads start moving around in circles...let me give you some more denier myths you can trot out again:

It's the sun doing it

Its volcanoes doing it

Climate is not sensitive to CO2

Humans only emit a tiny amount of CO2

You changed it from global warming to climate change

Its cosmic rays

Its not happening

It will be a good thing

We can't do anything about it

Its cold where I live

We will be in an Ice Age soon

You said it would be global cooling in the 1970's

Scientists can't predict the weather, never mind the climate

Scientists are biased and its a conspiracy...follow the money

What else have you got, because honestly its very boring.

besty

@SBF

Q - what data are you referring to

A - any prediction

Are you confused between data and predictions?

sammielee24

You had 3 billion people on this planet in 1980. You now have almost 8 billion people on the planet.

Logistics alone make anyone realize that if you triple your population, you triple the amount of resources you now eat up - water and food. You increase the population, you increase the food chain aka more animals to slaughter to feed the masses. You rip out farmers fields to build highrises to house the population.

We will have 50% more people on this planet at the end of the century if not sooner and in conjunction with that you have increasing technology and a decrease in actual jobs and/or income.

Humans can't but help add to climate change but nothing changes unless you stop adding another 5 billion in ten years to the problem. That might be a better solution than an Al Gore make him rich project - one that has turned as many people off the issue as it has led them to the same water he drinks. sammieswife

slimboyfat

I'm talking about the temperature figures that have not risen as expected.

Why does it annoy you so much that others don't find global warming totally convincing?

You list some pretty good reasons there for witholding judgement by the way. Many a true word spoken in jest, or sarcasm is that.

slimboyfat

1960 was when there was 3 billion people on earth.

IPCC Climate Change Report........

Share this