MartinLuther

Can you show that any of them used the scientific method or anything resembling it? Anyone can attach a name. Doesn't make it right.

What was their model for the solar system? Earth centred with rotating glass spheres. How well did they test that?

What was their model for the seasons? Persephone off to see Hades. How well did they test that?

What was their model for climate? That the further south you go the hotter it gets until you're burnt to a frazzle. How well did they test that?

They were not real scientists. They were philosophers. They did not experiment to test their theories. They did not experiment to disprove their theories. That's exactly why the Greeks thought that flies had 4 legs.

Sorry but scientists have not been studying the climate for 1000s of years. It's balls trotted out by people who don't have any strong argument for their climate theory.

Burbage

Scientists have NOT been studying the climate for thousands of years. There may have been one or two educated individuals who made notes about the weather, but they were neither experimental scientists nor capable of observing the climate at a global scale.

There is a serious question as to whether modern climatologists are studying the climate. They appear more interested in computer models than actual data. For example, we have, on the record, the preposterous statement that the sun has no effect on the Earth's climate, from the head of the Australian BOM.

The sun has no effect on their mathematical models, because they can't predict what it will do and they've just shoved it in as a constant, but I can guarantee you that if the sun goes out it will get cold.

The Earth's climate is always changing. The nature sceptics don't appear to be able to cope with the idea that the Earth can do this all by itself. Before you decide to say what something is, you must begin by saying what it isn't. No one has yet shown any evidence at all that the current warming period is not entirely natural.

Mathematical models of complex systems are not accurate. It is easier, by far, by several thousand orders of complexity, to model the world's financial markets. I don't see too many climatologists making fortunes on the stock exchange, but they're pretty good at hoodwinking the gullible into giving them lots of cash for their research projects.

Probably the best natural indicator of global temperature is sea level. It is rising slowly, indicating that the climate is warming. The climate will continue to warm, because we are still recovering from the last ice age. But there is no sign of catastrophic acceleration of sea level rise. None whatsoever. Though there is a discrepancy between earth bound sea level gauges and satellite gauges, which is causing a little confusion. But it probably means that the method of measuring sea level from space has not yet been properly worked out.

Deancm_MKII

You forgot to mention that a warming/cooling cycle of the oceans is approximately 800 years (give or take a few).

CasualObserver1

I will when you post examples when you post a strong argument against 'my' climate change theory.

CasualObserver1

I don't think anyone has ever argued that the earth's climate hasn't altered throughout geological history (who many times is it necessary to say this on one thread?).

Swerv-o

But as the proponent of the alternative hypothesis - the null hypothesis being that there is no relationship between human produced carbon dioxide emissions and climate change - then the onus falls upon you to demonstrate your position.

That's the very basis of scientific investigation.

The null hypothesis is usually put forward so that the experimental data can discredit it and thus prove the alternative. Unfortunately, I am yet to be convinced that this has occurred in the case of man made climate change, and I personally feel that this is largely due to the disparity between the data sets that have been collected and used. Too little discussion and theory has gone into developing a method to normalise between these datasets. Normalisation is a huge topic in itself, and in my opinion, it hasn't been done well with climate change data.

Trying to normalise core sample data with tree ring data with basic thermometer data with sea level data with satellite data is an incredibly complex science in itself. In this debate, however, it seems to have been glossed over as inconsequential.

I am still of an open mind in this debate, but I feel that more work on the actual science needs to be done, and I still have misgivings about the objectivity of the scientists involved.


S

CasualObserver1

Sorry but I don't think this is the forum to have these kind of discussions. Happy to do it on scientific forum.

It's not really worth posting anything serious as someone like Bernie will come along and start calling people '*****wits'.

Deancm_MKII

You started the thread so you need to prove your position before disparaging the alternative position, otherwise you shouldn't have started the thread and by doing so it is nothing more than an attempt at blatant trolling.

CasualObserver1

I suggest wind your neck in. Did you read my first post?

Deancm_MKII

Yes I did read your first post. In fact I've read a number of your posts on a number of threads and you don't seem to be making many friends.

Maybe you should wind your neck in. Food for thought eh...

On a side note, when I read your first post I thought it was a blatant attempt at winding up those that don't believe the climate change propaganda.

CasualObserver1

Virtual friends?

Deancm_MKII

Better than no friends whatsoever. Feeling lonely today?

CasualObserver1

Predictable comeback . I am bored as I have been signed off work ill. What's your excuse?

Deancm_MKII

Less predictable than yours...

I don't need an excuse to procrastinate.

CasualObserver1

Because you have no friends?