Discussion > The end of the Great Delusion is at hand
Hunter, Michael hart, ACK
If you could falsify the science of AGW, then it would be easy to present your evidence.
Since all you can offer is insults, I and any lurkers will take it as read that you cannot falsify AGW.
Entropic man
EM at 9.30am (sorry I've been busy all day and am just catching up):
"VV came here to talk to you, but left after insults from other members made it clear that he was not welcome.. This has happened regularly here. Sceptics here claim that they want debate and then drive away any scientists attempting to engage."
I see that gc and RR have both had at you about that comment, and I must agree with them, having just reviewed the thread in question. The only person to say anything even remotely provocative to VV was golf charlie, and that was mild to say the least. As you once said (of me) to me (I paraphrase, as I can't find the exact quote) perhaps VV needs to develop a thicker skin if he is to venture onto sceptic sites.
I'm genuinely disappointed that Victor didn't remain here to take the conversation forward. To respond to ACK, I think his failure to do so reflects on him, not on us. So far as I can see, there was a genuine and sincere desire to engage with him and conduct a serious conversation, but he didn't stay here to take it forward. I appreciate he must be busy, but then why descend on us from on high only to make a couple of comments and disappear again? How does that achieve anything?
Still, should Victor return, I for one will welcome him, and would like to re-open the discussion. He, and people like him,should be made welcome. I want to learn - either to understand where I'm going wrong (if he can explain things better than any explanations I've so far seen), or to reinforce my existing views if he cannot answer my questions (or those of others) satisfactorily.
Mark Hodgson
Sorry ACK, I see I was ambiguous again - I meant it reflected on Victor, not on you! and not on any of us.
Mark Hodgson
Entropic man: as there is no science in AGW, how can it be falsified?
I have offered a list of the some evidence against AGW (catastrophic or otherwise), yet you have not responded to any of it, despite demanding that it be provided. What sort of evidence do you require?
Also, why will you not answer any of the other, quite simple, questions that I have asked?
Radical Rodent
Radical rodent
What sort of evidence do you require?
I would like to see the numerical evidence on which you base your statements so that I can make an independent judgement as I do with data sources such as GISS and NSIDC
Numbers, graphs, published papers, statistics, data that I can analyse and crosscheck.
Entropic man
Mark Hodgson
Why not engage on Variable Variability?
Entropic man
Radical rodent
why will you not answer any of the other, quite simple, questions that I have asked?
Because I have done so repeatedly in the past and had no scientifically meaningful response. That is why I am now waiting for you to make your case.
Entropic man
@Golf said "no one predicted any of the significant election results of 2016"
OK a lot of people didn't cos they believe the media
And some people would say they predicted correctly
To me predicting is a mugs game, cos shouldn't have certainty beyond the evidence. eg No instead one should have scenarios. All the results were plausible scenarios and as sceptics were in our range of scenarios
But the media is different ..they don't seem to live in the real world
Humans have seen that thinking before with religions .where they also get into certainty beyond the evidence.
Skeptics live in the real world even if 99% of the local population are off in a fantasy world.
stewgreen
Entropic man: the evidence I have stated is commonly accessible evidence, evidence that I would think almost everybody on this site is aware of, evidence that, in the past, you have also shown that you are aware of. Do you require that I give some sort of formula or some associated numbers as evidence that the sun always rises in the eastern hemisphere? Would you accept it if I were to state that there is usually considerably more light during the daytime than at night? Or, what goes up usually comes down?
What you are basically admitting, here, is that you are unable to accept any evidence that is contrary to your devoutly-held beliefs. That is not science, that is cultism.
Radical Rodent
EM: are you aware of which questions I refer to? Probably not, or perhaps you are trying to dodge my queries… whatever…
To repeat myself: where and when have I denied the 2nd law of thermodynamics? And; where and when have I ever denied that global warming has occurred?
Radical Rodent
Radical rodent
Remember Husband?
Entropic man
Oh, dear… more questions not answered. Let me show you how it’s done: no, I don’t remember Husband. Your point?
Radical Rodent
EM
Maybe I will have a look at trying to engage in conversation at VV's site; but your suggestion basically amounts to an admission that your criticism of some on this site, as part of your defence of Victor, was wrong - though you can't actually bring yourself to admit it. A standard alarmist tactic.
When I've been shown to be wrong, I hope I always admit it openly. Alarmists rarely do, their standard m.o. being to change the subject, disappear for a while, answer a question with a question etc, etc. It's one of the reasons we sceptics become frustrated when trying to debate. Oh yes, that and the abuse we often suffer on alarmist sites. Not that I'm making such an accusation about VV - if I find time (I'm very busy at the moment) I might well try to venture there, as I say.
Mark Hodgson
.............. crickets ................
Radical Rodent
Martk Hodgson - EM has been known from time to time to concede that he has been wrong.
Martin A
Did Gergis have a Husband?
There certainly seemed to be some very close working relationships involved in the original Gergis paper, and it's rebirth to a thousand fanfare trumpets. At andthentheresphysics, Victor Venema was happy to celebrate with others, the wonderful work of Gergis, and how it was only evil deniers noticing a few crossed "I"s and dotted "t"s that had caused the original difficulties, even belittling the few people who dared to query the maths.
The rest, is Climate Science history. Which is ironic, considering Climate Science ignores history, and is about to become part of it.
golf charlie
Radical rodent
How quickly you forget!
Not long ago you brought up Husband's idea. He claimed to explain the high temperatures on Venus without using the CO2 greenhouse effect. Unfortunately his idea required a large amount of energy to magically appear from nowhere. This violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
Your vigorous defence of Husband's idea marked you as a 2nd Law denier.
Entropic man
Entropic Man
I feel I owe you an apology. When I posted this morning, I was having a "black dog" moment after being rendered depressed by viewing a piece at The Conversation (which I have seen called - with reason, I think - Monologue Macht Frei):
https://theconversation.com/i-told-my-students-to-be-optimistic-about-the-climate-after-trump-i-feel-an-utter-fraud-68774
Considering it's supposed to be a conversation, I found this response from the author of the piece to someone commenting, to be terribly inappropriate:
"Frank, there is literally nothing I could say that would lead you to change your views. So I’m not going to try. I hope you don’t consider that impolite. I’m just tired walking around the same block. "
Apparently the thought that there was nothing anyone could say to make him change his views, hadn't occurred to him. And whatever happened to "conversation" (the name of the website)?
Robin Guenier added this comment:
"'… we need large and sustained reductions right now and for the rest of the century if we are going to avoid the dangers that lurk around 2℃ warming above pre-industrial levels.'
The Paris Agreement cannot deliver such reductions. Therefore an intervention by Trump, far from extinguishing hope, could do little further damage. Indeed, if it were to trigger a radical rethink of global climate policy, it might even be beneficial.
The reason the Agreement cannot have the effect many had hoped for is that, as a result of negotiations since COP-15 (Copenhagen), it is so drafted that the developing countries (responsible for over 65 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions) are exempt from any obligation, legal or moral, to reduce those emissions: LINK.
Perhaps, James, you might consider including in your undergraduate class a module reviewing international climate negotiations, agreements and policy."
Absolutely spot on, but the feeble response was this:
"We do consider Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and talk about international and integenerational justice."
Robin responded with:
"That’s encouraging. But do you discuss the way the major developing economies tied the CBDR principle to their insistence that the Paris Agreement should be in full accord with the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – an insistence that led directly to the exemption I refer to above? Pre-Paris there were many examples of this insistence: this India/China joint statement is one such. An extract:
The Two Sides reaffirm that the 2015 agreement shall be in full accordance with the principles, provisions and structure of the UNFCCC, in particular the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, reflecting different historical responsibilities, development stages and national circumstances between developed and developing countries.
An outcome of all this was that “responsibilities” became so “differentiated” that, by the end on 2015, they ceased to exist. If your students were to be helped to understand how this had happened and what were its implications, I suggest they would understand (as so many fail to do) that it’s the major developing economies that are the problem, not Trump and other assorted Western “deniers”. And you might avoid feeling like a fraud."
Again, absolutely spot on.
The "conversation" continued, but wasn't up to much in my opinion. I was rather depressed to contemplate the "education" our young people are receiving today.
I then made the mistake of looking at the latest propaganda on the BBC website, which also depressed me. Then I came here. So I'm afraid that, rather regrettably, I took out my feelings on Entropic Man after reading his last response to me. I shouldn't have done so. I apologise.
Off-topic, I'm also depressed, as a left-leaning observer of society, to see how our "liberal establishment" still don't understand how their illiberal intolerance of people who don't agree with them, is driving the electorate towards the Trumps and Le Pen's of this world. If you can stand the bad language, then the rant from Jonathan Pie pretty much sums up my feelings on what's going on currently, and how depressing I find politics currently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
Maybe I should cease posting comments until I've cheered up a bit...
Mark Hodgson
Mark Hodgson
No problem.
Entropic man
Entropic Man
Very gracious of you - much appreciated.
Mark Hodgson
Entropic man:
O-kay… Now, you’ll have to tell me where, so that I can review my arguments – alas, my computer has trashed an awful lot of files, including the records of these conversations that I try to keep. A more likely explanation is that you have misread or misunderstood what I wrote; you are not the only one – have a look at how ACK seemed to have trouble on the simple point that I was trying to make on the “The Price of Fracking” discussion thread. I have no shame in being wrong – let’s face it, I have had plenty of time to get used to it, so many times – but can get annoyed when I am called out as wrong by someone who has not actually read what I wrote, and that is something you have done, many times in the past, and on comments of many others.
Well, that is one question answered; any chance of clearing up any others?
Radical Rodent
Cor! A back- handed slap from Ravishing Rattie when I wasn't even looking.
ACK
Heheheh… We Rodents can be very sneaky!
Sorreeee… but you had given an excellent example of what I was talking about, like wot I wrote (h/t to Ernie).
Radical Rodent
Radical rodent
You will find the Venus discussion on the " A temperature timeline for the last 22,000 years" discussion thread, from page 25 onwards.
My memory is nearly as bad as yours. The originator of this particular bit of thermodynamics denial was not Husband, but Huffman.
Entropic man
Ravishing Rattie. I believe the current climate obsession is like a fast-spinning, heavy flywheel. Try to reverse the spin and it will shatter. It will take much with it unless someone puts on the breaks. Trump?