Faulty data?

[Lurkalot]

On another forum I've been following a climate change thread . The original poster of the thread is vehemently against the notion of any sort of human influence. He has been presented with evidence which he dismisses as made up by so called scientists , his arguments wander but is adamant the whole thing is just one big hoax. Another poster I've encountered on other forums who always presents rational informed arguments has provided evidence but now seems to have given up as have I .
The OP has now linked in a Mail online article which talks of the data being incorrect or flawed or at least overstated . I'm disinclined to respond as I know perfectly well how it will go , it's like talking to a brick wall but did wonder how the members of this forum would see this article .
The link,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -data.html

Edit , in case anyone wants a frustrating 12 page read,
http://www.ultimatehandyman.co.uk/forum ... 87253.html

[adam2]

The vast volume of data on climate change suggests that some of it must be false, some due to deliberate fraud and other data being false due to cock up and inefficiency.

Also some data is very complex and open to differing interpretations.

Rather than endless argument over the accuracy or otherwise of individual data sources, I urge concentrating on simple and readily available information that is already publicly available.

For example, 50 years ago significant snowfall was the norm in suburban London with snow laying for several days every winter. It is now very rare.

Snow cover on most mountains has declined substantially, no arguments over the details needed, simply compare tourist photographs from decades ago with more recent views.

Most glaciers are retreating, this can be seen by anyone comparing old photographs with new.

[Lurkalot]

I understand what you mean and wouldn't disagree. The frustrating poster on the other forum would also agree that there's less snow etc but that it proves nothing. He sticks to the argument that as the climate has changed in the past any change now is purely down to natural variation and there's no evidence that man made emissions have had any influence. He wants 100% concrete evidence that we are influencing our climate even though he can't provide concrete evidence to show it's all natural. He even at one point said as coal and oil are "natural" products then any influence is therefore natural.
While I respect people's willingness to question I find his attitude stubborn and frustrating and frankly cannot understand those who are seemingly gleeful about abusing the envoiroment.

[raspberry-blower]

As a general rule of thumb, anything purporting to be scientific emanating from either the Daily Fail or the Express can be regarded as BS.

Carbon Brief: Fact Check on Fail on Sundays astonishing evidence on global temperature rise

[Lurkalot]

Against my better judgement I posted that link and the response was predictable , claims of trying to defend the indefensible. A few others chimed in and it appears the human race also isn't responsible for holes in the ozone layer either.

[emordnilap]

It's really not worth it, Lurkalot, life's too short. Does the poster smoke?

[johnhemming2]

This forum is a good example of how some people don't like the truth. Personally I welcome someone correcting my arguments if I am factually wrong. However, when I suggest that people are wrong (with evidence) I get attempts to ban me from the forum.

My personal view is that I wish to know what the truth is. It is not possible to do that entirely from personal experience hence I need other people's knowledge.

[Pepperman]

Interestingly that piece was in this Sunday's paper and by the time I woke up on Sunday morning it had already been picked apart twice (once by Hausfather in Carbon Brief, another by Victor Venema in the Variable Variability blog) and then more came along a few hours later.

I'm glad that proper scientists are giving up their spare time to produce such high quality and prompt rebuttals to the kind of horseshit that Rose puts out.

In this particular case I would go with emordnilap's advice. Life is too short to get bogged down in the weeds with these kinds of people. Nothing will persuade them.

[Lurkalot]

I took the advice and didn't respond although I have continued to read the thread as it expanded to some twenty pages now. One poster talked of throwing more coal on his fire and ended his post with #idontcareaboutglobalwarming which I though while quite depressing was nonetheless perfectly honest. He didn't try to provide "evidence" from various dubious websites or question the data or flaws in the data , he just doesn't care . How one approaches that attitude I really don't know.

[woodburner]

This forum is a good example of how some people don't like the truth. Personally I welcome someone correcting my arguments if I am factually wrong. However, when I suggest that people are wrong (with evidence) I get attempts to ban me from the forum.

My personal view is that I wish to know what the truth is. It is not possible to do that entirely from personal experience hence I need other people's knowledge.

Others are not the only ones who don't like the truth, some people work on what appears to be a faith system despite being presented with evidence, then they more or less claim it is fake news.

https://kar.kent.ac.uk/38631/1/293019(2).pdf

The whole line above is needed, for some reason PS does not like the format with the "(2).pdf" at the end..

[adam2]

I have deleted a number of off topic posts, mainly about fluoridated tap water and related subjects.
If you wish to discuss the merits or otherwise of fluoridating tap water please add comments to the thread on the subject which may be found thus
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... 9&start=15

[johnhemming2]

In the posts that were deleted rather than transferred to another thread I also asked what is the date of the earliest academic paper that anyone knows of that argued the case that CO2 in the atmosphere caused the climate to get warmer.

I think that was on-topic.

I would make the point about deleting posts rather than transferring them that a small amount of research often goes into the posts to write them. If they are deleted then that work becomes futile.

My particular point is that you should really transfer the posts rather than delete them if the only criticism is that the are off topic.

You have also left the starting post which points to a flawed paper that makes some identified nonsensical claims about fluoride. I identified those points in my posts.

For balance either all the off topic posts should be transferred or none of them.

[Pepperman]

In the posts that were deleted rather than transferred to another thread I also asked what is the date of the earliest academic paper that anyone knows of that argued the case that CO2 in the atmosphere caused the climate to get warmer.

I would say these are the four most notable papers:

http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Paper ... l-1861.pdf
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896 ... 173546.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30055497?s ... b_contents
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/fil ... nder38.pdf

[johnhemming2]

I thought the callender one was particularly impressive although I was not aware of the other three.

The nub of the issue, however, is that arguments about links between CO2 (and other gases) in the atmosphere and heat retention are not that new.

Thank you for these when I get some time I will read them all. (apart from Callender - which I have already read).

[Pepperman]

Oh yes, the core of climate science is old and very well understood. Plenty of interesting research to be done though.