• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Just Stop Oil Protesters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thought we might end up here again Darrel @dw1305. We really are entering in to the realms of the philosophy of science now. Although, I’m not sure deferring to Popper in this instance is particularly helpful.

“The classic Popperian approach to science, in which potentially refutable hypotheses are defined and tested is not well suited to the challenges posed by an Earth System that is characterised by high degrees of complexity, non-linearity and a lack of definable cause-consequence relationships.” (Oldfield and Stefffen, 2014)

Perhaps Kuhn’s relativism would be more appropriate.

Either way, if it helps just think of me at the fringes questioning the data and challenging the prevailing consensus, testing the falsifiability of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

On that note, sorry the two peer reviewed papers I posted don’t meet with your approval Darrel, and that you think I’m obfuscating. But they do cast doubt on the validity of climate data since the models that produce it are not sophisticated enough to accurately represent reality. And are prone to operator error, confirmation bias, ideological bias, and circular reasoning. The output data is also often open to interpretation.

Determining whether natural or anthropogenic factors exert the greatest influence on climate change, and therefore increasing global temperatures and melting glaciers and sea level rise etc still remains unsettled. In other words the debate is still ongoing. I hope there’s some common ground in at least one of the peer reviewed papers below. I’ve also included other material that might be of interest. If some of the links don’t work just copy and paste in to your web browser.

Natural forcings that reproduce the observed CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Harde-2023-Understanding-Increasing-CO2-II.pdf
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Yndestad-2022-Lunar-Forced-CO2-Variability.pdf

The influence of the sun.
Radware Bot Manager Captcha
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ure-Trends-with-Last-Century-Observations.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987123001172

The influence of ocean circulation, the Pacific and Atlantic decadal oscillations.
https://climate-science.press/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PAIJ-05-00236.pdf

Doubts on the reliability of global land surface air temperature data
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/62/8/JAMC-D-22-0122.1.xml
link.springer.com

Detection of non‐climatic biases in land surface temperature records by comparing climatic data and their model simulations - Climate Dynamics

The 0.6 °C warming observed in global temperature datasets from 1940 to 1960 to 2000–2020 can be partially due to urban heat island (UHI) and other non-climatic biases in the underlying data, although several previous studies have argued to the contrary. Here we identify land regions where such...
link.springer.com link.springer.com

Increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration follow increases in temperature. Not the other way around.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.01245

Uncertainties of model based claims of climate change and extreme weather events and natural disasters.
http://www.infinitoteatrodelcosmo.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Briggs-Climate-Attribution.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajes.12579
https://climate-science.press/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/0IPCC-Extreme-Weather.pdf

Climate change policy and politics
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4033504
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...9ce2aa2151ca7b268ea7367fd15b99ea05e927f7?p2df
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Scientific-Case-Against-Net-Zero:-Falsifying-Simpson/154c131de5895456e9f933bc5a604b2504838e50
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi all,
This really is my last post ........
We really are entering in to the realms of the philosophy of science now.
Click to expand...
We aren't, there is no philosophy just truth and lies.
Natural forcings that reproduce the observed CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Harde-2023-Understanding-Increasing-CO2-II.pdf
Click to expand...
I'm not going to go through the links one at time, but this is your first one.
Welcome to the Home Page of SCC
The objective of this journal was and is, to publish – different to many other journals – also peer re-viewed scientific contributions, which contradict the often very unilateral climate hypotheses of the IPCC and thus, to open the view to alternative interpretations of climate change.

The journal is a non-profit venture, hosted and supported by the Norwegian Klimarealistene (KR – Climate Realists)
Click to expand...
You honestly couldn't make it up, except you, and they, have.

Not a journal and <"not science">.

cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:
In my experience, someone genuinely questioning the science would be exposing themselves to diverse opinions, and sharing them, but almost everything you post, Tim, is explicitly against accepting climate breakdown – it's a menu of reasons to doubt it, some of them, as others have pointed out, being dubious scientifically and morally. To stick with the theme of the thread, thank the lord for just stop oil protestors forcing us to face this very real issue. Saying it is a complex issue, and then standing at one position on the clock face, as an outlier, between 11pm and midnight, is not a thesis, it's a very narrow stance, in scientific terms, however many links you post.
 
That’s a shame Darrel. The majority are peer reviewed papers from reputable journals. I hadn’t expected you to agree, but I’m surprised and disappointed that you refuse to read beyond the first reference. Especially since you asked me to put my money where my mouth is.

And to be fair, I did mention at the top of my last post that I’d included some other material too. But I think that particular paper is peer reviewed. You can’t discount it or dismiss it, or any of the others, as unscientific simply because you disagree with it or don’t approve of the journal it’s published in. That’s not reasonable nor particularly scientific in and of itself.

Also this is just a small sample of my reading list. So it’s not as though I’m clutching at straws either. Anyway, I set out to show that the science of climate change is not yet settled and I think I’ve done that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or, put another way, you've established that, in a diversity of opinions concerning the solutions, nobody else has questioned climate breakdown and the science of climate change, who has commented. We're only a small subset of opinion but it's reassuring that there is so much unanimity on the basic science, and only a single person who seeks to unsettle it.
 
Hi all,
The majority are peer reviewed papers from reputable journals.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to be played in your game, so we will just have the next one: <"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908">.
Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.
Click to expand...
The majority are peer reviewed papers from reputable journals. ....... but I’m surprised and disappointed that you refuse to read beyond the first reference. Especially since you asked me to put my money where my mouth is
Click to expand...
Just to say "they aren't" and you are still entirely bankrupt.
That’s a shame Darrel.
Click to expand...
No, this is a shame.

What I don't understand is that you are the author of <"Soil Substrate or Dirted Tank - A How to Guide">, an article I've both cited and personally admired, and I have no idea how we got from there <"to this">.

cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:
dw1305 said:
Just to say "they aren't" and you are still entirely bankrupt.
Click to expand...
Then I guess I must be entirely bankrupt. I’m pretty sure most of the references are peer reviewed.

dw1305 said:
I'm not going to be played in your game, so we will just have the next one: <"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908">.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear that's the second reference you've chosen from the entire list, not actually the second one in the list. It is an old paper, 2013, not sure how it sneaked in, you asked for papers from the 2020s.

But for the record rebuttal and refutation are quite normal. One group of scientist challenging the work of another and so on. Regardless of what side of the fence you sit on. It’s part of the peer review process, how science works and progresses.

How rigour is maintained, theories tweaked, developed, and refined. How paradigms are established and shifted. But the flip side is it can get very vicious and personal. Talking of which. . .

dw1305 said:
No, this is a shame.

What I don't understand is that you are the author of <"Soil Substrate or Dirted Tank - A How to Guide">, an article I've both cited and personally admired, and I have no idea how we got from there <"to this">.
Click to expand...
That's a very low blow Darrel, especially for you. As is calling me entirely bankrupt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s getting really difficult to know who to believe these days. Like many I’ve largely given up with the mainstream media as they often cherrypick or downright lie. I read a really blatant attempt a while back, but perhaps more shocking than the lies, was the fact the authors didn’t hide the fact they were sponsored by the Oil Industry! Prevaricators and dumb with it.

​

 
For sure @Aqua sobriquet, many papers now seem to have a disclaimer at the end stating the source of funding, and if there was any at all. I guess it's at least a step in the right direction to ensuring impartiality, neutrality, and autonomy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top