Thread: Scientists: Mediterranean Sea “Not Warming”

Angelman wrote:-

Clippo you wrote - I read every such link and form an opinion on the scientific ‘authority’ (definition - whether the link’s pronouncements are reasonably believable).

with all due respect, that is something we all do.

Maybe or maybe not.
&

What you seem to be suggesting is that anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusions as you is somehow not intelligent enough to form the "correct" opinion

I consider, for the greater proportion of the non-scientific population, they don’t have the specialised knowledge to analyse accurately the truths or falsehoods that other people say about certain topics – especially GW.
(as a side issue, I have stated many times that I favour Direct Democracy as a political movement. But a friend has uncomfortably pointed out to me that the weakness in DD is that most ‘ordinary’ people don’t have the full comprehensive knowledge of individual issues to make a ’correct’ decision in, say, a referendum – and what is ‘correct’ anyway.)

In the long ‘wind’ thread, I clearly said that I didn’t understand the fine electrical discussions between Paul Birch, Besoeker & Ian C for example. Furthermore, since Paul Birch, g hall and other ‘deniers’ didn’t provide me with even reasonable ‘proof’ that generating companies pay money for wind source energy, I therefore concluded that Besoeker & Ian C, for example, had more ‘authority’ on that topic.

Without question, the links from those I call AGW deniers here, have always been from secondary or tertiary sources and are therefore suspect because of accidental or deliberate ‘chinese whispers’ as I put it to Omnologos recently.

Many if not most of those links in turn have a reasonable or highly provable provenance from the AGW ‘doubt’ campaign created by US big business in the early 1980’s and those secondary links are exposed as false, EVERY time by much cleverer people than me. Yet, those links still repeat the old falsities in ever decreasing circles.

We have an example of this currently re: the treatment of Alan Carling, of the EPA. I don’t know where this first started, possibly in ‘wattsupwiththat’ then somewhere else and now the Wall Street Journal (of known anti-AGW views).

Yet the ‘truth’ of this has been clearly stated in RealClimate by many of those who actually worked with Carling. (I tend to believe those closest to the event are a greater ‘authority’ than Anti-AGW blogs trying to use it for ‘political’ purposes)

In simpler words, the point I am trying to make is that I don’t criticise these sites or people because they don’t ‘agree’ with me, it is because they don’t provide convincing ‘proof’ of their statements.

Furthermore, I seriously object to being ‘propagandised’ on essentially scientific issues (if there is such a word), by anybody who has an ulterior ‘political’ motive.

When any of the links provide convincing proof, then I will study it further and as I’ve said before, I will be prepared to change my mind (subject to that ‘proof’ being validated by independent scientific studies).

Also for Omnologos - you wrote:-

You wonder why I posted the MedArgo blog in my website. As already stated I always make a point of striving to post climate-related information that are not widely available in the English language.

I've obviously mised that statement, but I would point out that the whole list of 11 previous articles I quoted in post #13 (and probably the rest that I couldn’t be bothered to quote) were freely available in the English language /literature. Furthermore, you probably got those from that very English (anti-AGW) literature.

If I had made a similar assertion, I would have been accused of ‘lying’ by certain posters here.

Also, you have carefully avoided answering questions I have raised. This is, of course, a standard AGW denier technique because they know their confusions will be exposed.
……………..
I can understand how hurt you must feel for your pet blog to correctly & thoroughly trashed – but the solution is up to you.

i.e truly have an open mind and don’t post such biased and incomplete nonsense.

As it stands now, I have to unkindly repeat my original summary as :-

A ludicrously sceptic nutter website

When you can post articles which back-up your statements with reasonable proof, and refer to alternative opinionated articles, then you may get some ‘authority’.

However, from your replies here, you seem incapable of recognising that your blog and personal thought processes have faults – (is that that ‘syndrome’ I referred to elsewhere, I wonder?) – so I’m not holding my breath to see if you do make changes.

Have to go now - & sorry Bear, this has delayed my response to you

To an A.A. Milne Bear there would appear to be a bottom line.

GIVEN THAT the activities that people are engaged in produce huge quantities of gasses that do create the Greenhouse Effect

AND

GIVEN THAT the activities that people are engaged in cause sever damage to the biomass that provides the negative feedback to the release of CO2 and some other Greenhouse gasses

AND

GIVEN THAT there is an observable correlation of increase of CO2 and mean global temperatures since the industrial revolution kicked in

AND

GIVEN THAT there has NOT been an observable significant increase in biomass

THEN

To make no changes it is reasonable to assume that the probability is greater than zero that the environment will continue to degrade as a consequence of man’s activities and with catastrophic consequences

AND

To cut back on activities that do release Greenhouse gases and other pollutants it is reasonable to assume that the probability is greater than zero will not make a bad situation worse even if there is a social cost since life beats lifestyle hands down.



To me the answer is obvious, and although not a case of being “zero loss” it is not that far removed from the conclusion reached by adapting and then following Pascal’s gambit.

And if you don’t know what that was then you should.

Originally Posted by Clippo

I consider, for the greater proportion of the non-scientific population, they don’t have the specialised knowledge to analyse accurately the truths or falsehoods that other people say about certain topics – especially GW.
(as a side issue, I have stated many times that I favour Direct Democracy as a political movement. But a friend has uncomfortably pointed out to me that the weakness in DD is that most ‘ordinary’ people don’t have the full comprehensive knowledge of individual issues to make a ’correct’ decision in, say, a referendum

Thomas Carlyle put it more succinctly.
"I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."

Originally Posted by Clippo

In the long ‘wind’ thread, I clearly said that I didn’t understand the fine electrical discussions between Paul Birch, Besoeker & Ian C...

Farce rather than discussions..

My definition of 'authority' in this context means broadly:-

"The respect for the statements of others based on the prior examples of their subsequent validity."

In other words, by experience, you can reasonably trust what they say.

In your case, I can't trust what you say because alsmost everything prior you have said on your blog, has been proven to be scientitfically flawed.

Besoeker wrote:-

Thomas Carlyle put it more succinctly.
"I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."

That's precisely the quote my 'friend' used some time ago

&

Farce rather than discussions..

As usual Mr B, a 'polite' description again to say the least.

Originally Posted by Clippo

That's precisely the quote my 'friend' used some time ago &
As usual Mr B, a 'polite' description again to say the least.

Well, thank you old fellow.
And yes, I know what I said and when I said it.
I'm blessed and cursed with memory. Particularly for numbers and symbols.
As a trivial example, if someone turns over a pack of cards one at a time I can repeat the order of the 52. Forwards or backwards. It's a nice party piece but not a trick and not easy.

The down side is that colleagues sometimes have an expectation that I can remember every detail of every project we have undertaken.
But there is a backstop.
I cant remember what I didn't know in the first place.