Articles such as this can be used by Climate Change deniers

[kenneal - lagger]

Articles such as this can be jumped upon by Climate Change deniers to reinforce their denial of the science of Climate Change and so are very dangerous and should be questioned.

My questioning below:-

It is wrong to say that main stream science has been wrong because more recent science has superseded the old. What we have learned more recently has built on the original “peer reviewed� science and refined our understanding of those subjects not overturned it. 
To call economics and other “social sciences� science is a travesty as, especially in the case of economics, the models that are used are rarely backcaste to ensure their accuracy and the work is rarely peer reviewed as with the major sciences. Hall and Klittegard in their book “Energy and the Wealth of Nations� completely debunk Economics and Lord Stern in his book “Why Are We Waiting� takes main stream economics to task over its dreadful treatment of climate change.
To use the failings of the social “sciences� to prove a point with major science is to devalue or even invalidate your argument.

[fuzzy]

It's hard to see what the point of his article is.
No one who uses a model with less variables than reality suggests that it gives the full picture. No one suggests that an incomplete sample of data is the entire truth. Both Newtons results and Einsteins ideas are correct within the model of the world they cover. The newer Einstein 'facts' mean that the model in which you use Newtons results needed amending to cover most real situations rather than the entire universe.
Most research and papers are vehicles for people to receive a reward - a qualification, the ability to work in a nerdy place with lots of holidays etc. These papers only have to please those awarding marks and support and can conclude any old crap. The scientific truth has not been altered by what humans conclude.

[vtsnowedin]

It's hard to see what the point of his article is.
..............
The scientific truth has not been altered by what humans conclude.

I would edit that last to say" The actual truth...."
Scientific truth seeks the actual but is often an incomplete version hindered by the present biases of the scientific community. We arrogantly think we now have it correct but necessary revisions keep popping up.

[kenneal - lagger]

..............Most research and papers are vehicles for people to receive a reward - a qualification, the ability to work in a nerdy place with lots of holidays etc. These papers only have to please those awarding marks and support and can conclude any old crap. The scientific truth has not been altered by what humans conclude.

That is not true of scientific papers but might be true of social, economic and history papers. If a scientific paper cannot be justified and the results of experiments repeated the paper will be thrown out by peers. Social, economic and history papers only have to fit in with current thinking and are not required to be mathematically and scientifically robust.

[woodburner]

..............Most research and papers are vehicles for people to receive a reward - a qualification, the ability to work in a nerdy place with lots of holidays etc. These papers only have to please those awarding marks and support and can conclude any old crap. The scientific truth has not been altered by what humans conclude.

That is not true of scientific papers but might be true of social, economic and history papers. If a scientific paper cannot be justified and the results of experiments repeated the paper will be thrown out by peers. Social, economic and history papers only have to fit in with current thinking and are not required to be mathematically and scientifically robust.

The peers might not throw it out if they have the same beliefs, and are after similar funding for their research. They might even cite the paper to bolster their own “findings�

As an example of a good predictive hypothesis, we know that if we stand in a specific place, at a specific time, we will see an eclipse of the sun. We know this because we have been told that it will happen by people, who get this right 100% of the time.

If, on the other hand, someone says global temperature will rise by two degrees in the next twenty years, and it does not, we should be rightly sceptical that the scientists predicting this have got their ideas properly nailed down. We should also be sceptical when people alter their hypothesis to fit the facts. Global Warming has become Climate Change. Which some, like me, would say has changed their hypothesis from one that can be disproven, to one that cannot. ‘We predicted the Climate would change, and look it has. Told you so.’

[kenneal - lagger]

If, on the other hand, someone says global temperature will rise by two degrees in the next twenty years, and it does not, we should be rightly sceptical that the scientists predicting this have got their ideas properly nailed down. We should also be sceptical when people alter their hypothesis to fit the facts. Global Warming has become Climate Change. Which some, like me, would say has changed their hypothesis from one that can be disproven, to one that cannot. ‘We predicted the Climate would change, and look it has. Told you so.’

So, are you saying that Global Warming/Climate Change is a hoax, Woodburner?

No climate Global Warming/Climate Change scientist has said that the temperature will rise by 2 deg C in any one spot in any length of time as far as I know. They are predicting that average world temperatures will rise by that amount under certain circumstances and by possibly 5 deg C or more in other circumstances. They cannot predict the weather in any one place with any certainty in ten days time let alone over a period of years and they know that. Predicting a temperature at any one place is weather forecasting.

They have changed from Global Warming to Climate Change because idiot professional deniers, most of whom are in the pay of fossil fuel companies such as the Koch Brothers in the US, have cottoned on to the fact that they can use predictions of a warning world when local weather gets colder locally to "disprove" Global Warming. This works well in the very insular US where the majority of people have no idea that the world outside their own bubble might be different to their own personal bubble and where there have been several very cold weather events over the last few decades.

When the US has had very cold winters the Arctic has had unusually warm ones but no one is telling them that because that would destroy their carefully nurtured illusion because the billionaire owned press, in league with the billionaire owned fuel companies, have an anti global warming agenda - it might cost them a lot of money.

A general average warming of the world and its waters is disturbing the balance of the climate, hence climate change, and is causing the well predicted extreme weather events which involve more cold events as well as more hotter events. The warming world and especially warming oceans are causing more energy and water vapour to get into the atmosphere which brings us more extreme winds and precipitation, whether is be in the form of rain or snow.

It has disturbed the balance of temperatures which drives the jet stream which in turn keeps cold air in the Arctic and warm air to the south, or at least it did. The jet stream now meanders much more than it did in the past and this meandering is what causes the US to get very cold while, at the same time, the Arctic gets much warmer than it has in the past.

So, Woodburner, your quote proves nothing and is just another example of the obfuscation employed by the same people who tried to convince us for years that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause lung cancer and other diseases that kill to put us off bringing in measures to combat Climate Change/Global Warming because it would cost their masters money.

I note also that the quote is entirely anonymous so we can have no idea of the scientific veracity of the perpetrators of the quote. In all probability they will have no scientific qualification at all. If they do have any scientific qualifications I doubt that it will be in the field of Climate Change/Global Warming.

[vtsnowedin]

........
...........
This works well in the very insular US where the majority of people have no idea that the world outside their own bubble might be different to their own personal bubble and where there have been several very cold weather events over the last few decades.

Your perception that the average American is more out of touch with world conditions then the average Brit is amusing. What do the boys down at the pub have to say about "The beast from the East"?

[kenneal - lagger]

I haven't been to the pub in ages to have a chat with the lads. More of a rugby club person really and they usually humour me. When I do go to the pub it is usually to meet the local Climate Change action group that I belong to for a committee meeting so they are all well on side.

[woodburner]

So, Woodburner, your quote proves nothing and is just another example of the obfuscation employed by the same people who tried to convince us for years that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause lung cancer and other diseases that kill to put us off bringing in measures to combat Climate Change/Global Warming because it would cost their masters money.

I note also that the quote is entirely anonymous so we can have no idea of the scientific veracity of the perpetrators of the quote. In all probability they will have no scientific qualification at all. If they do have any scientific qualifications I doubt that it will be in the field of Climate Change/Global Warming.

Just as predicted, an implied personal attack. Indicative of that typical of supporters of a non-scientific attitude, while claiming to be scientific. Climate change supporters often claim “settled science� or “consensus� or similar sentiments.

Though produced to illustrate the medical world, it is revealing of the techniques of many other fields claiming to be “science�. I recommend some bedtime reading http://www.doctoringdata.co.uk/

Note my new signature. If you have a position I am happy to discuss it. I am unlikely to be right, just as almost everyone else is unlikely to be right, but there are plenty of hypotheses, and that’s all they are. Science is about disproving hypotheses, not claiming an unprovable position.

[raspberry-blower]

Though produced to illustrate the medical world, it is revealing of the techniques of many other fields claiming to be “science�. I recommend some bedtime reading http://www.doctoringdata.co.uk/

I have read this thanks - it is certainly an interesting and thought provoking read.

The problem with anything regarding scientific is that nothing is ever 100% proven. Ever. There are confidence intervals that may give you 99.9% which is as far as it goes.

What really causes problems are the language used to convey scientific messages and the context in which it is presented. Using absolutist language should raise red warning flags: i.e. Climate Change IS OCCURRING or Climate Change is NOT HAPPENING . Both are using emotive language and is not what the Climate Scientists are saying in their scientific papers.

The real trouble here, though, is the linear thought process created by the Western education system. Everything gets couched into an "I'm right, you're wrong" discussion that leads to polarisation and acrimony.

[woodburner]

I think it is correct correct to say climate change is happening, as it has always happened. The question is, does it matter?

[kenneal - lagger]

So, Woodburner, your quote proves nothing and is just another example of the obfuscation employed by the same people who tried to convince us for years that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause lung cancer and other diseases that kill to put us off bringing in measures to combat Climate Change/Global Warming because it would cost their masters money.

I note also that the quote is entirely anonymous so we can have no idea of the scientific veracity of the perpetrators of the quote. In all probability they will have no scientific qualification at all. If they do have any scientific qualifications I doubt that it will be in the field of Climate Change/Global Warming.

Just as predicted, an implied personal attack. Indicative of that typical of supporters of a non-scientific attitude, while claiming to be scientific. Climate change supporters often claim “settled science� or “consensus� or similar sentiments.

Though produced to illustrate the medical world, it is revealing of the techniques of many other fields claiming to be “science�. I recommend some bedtime reading http://www.doctoringdata.co.uk/

Note my new signature. If you have a position I am happy to discuss it. I am unlikely to be right, just as almost everyone else is unlikely to be right, but there are plenty of hypotheses, and that’s all they are. Science is about disproving hypotheses, not claiming an unprovable position.

If you can find an implied personal attack in that quote you have a very good imagination or are too sensitive for your own good or are trying to divert attention from my criticism. There you are, a direct personal attack in that quote, I admit but you asked for it.

I note that you are quite happy to attack my belief in the science of global warming, which usually claims 95 or so percent probability, while you peddle science from non main stream sources and expect us to believe your source; indeed you get very heated when people show the least signs of disbelief.

Just because science from the food, pharmaceutical and agricultural industries is paid for by the companies which will profit from the work done does not mean that all science is compromised. After all you believe in science enough to buy a computer and use it.

Climate change is happening and has always happened but it has never, according to the most recent research, happened so quickly on a global scale. It matters to me because I think it is my duty to hand over to my children and grand children a land that is in an equal or better condition than the land was when I inherited it.

[clv101]

I think it is correct correct to say climate change is happening...

Indeed.

...as it has always happened.

I'm not sure we have evidence that what's happened over the last century can be described by 'as it always has'. What's happening now is very different to the glacial/inter-glacial transitions, certainly very different to past stable periods. In fact, I would say there's good evidence to suggest what's happening now is really very different to 'as it always has'. When was the last time atmospheric CO2 increased by a ~third is little over a century?

The question is, does it matter?

That's a big question - in the end we're all dead anyway, does anything matter? Of all the things one can make an argument for 'mattering', I'd rank climate change as something right up there. A 4 degree warmer world is a very different world with very significant (negative) impacts for most of the biosphere.

[woodburner]

A somewhat reckless approach to climate change is this, what I see as ill considered position I saw on another forum:

So far, over the last 40 years, predictions of warming have turned out to be just that, no big deal.

Even millennials, brought up on the AGW catastrophe concept, shown Al Gores Inconvenient Truth nonsense in school, and been subjected to media hype their entire lives are beginning to question the whole concept.

And the fact remains, that despite all the science thrown at climate change, the unanticipated greening of our planet remains the only empirical manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2. Strangely, it includes the greening of equatorial deserts as well.

The planet is the coldest it has ever been without descending into an ice age; atmospheric CO2 dropped to it’s lowest level not so many years ago, 180 ppm, (meaningful plant-life dies around 150 ppm, bye bye humanity); sub mariners happily operate with CO2 levels of 6,000 ppm;, farmers produce crops in greenhouses with levels around 1,500 ppm with no detriment to workers; and if temperatures go up, perhaps the vast acreage of Russia and Canada will be released from permafrost to provide fertile agricultural land.

Heaven help us if such an approach becomes the government thinking.

[kenneal - lagger]

That quote contains truths taken out of context, half truths and damned lies and is just an attempt to fool people into letting a few very greedy people carry on exploiting the rest of us so that they can make even more money than that which they currently hold and that they can't find a good use for at the moment.