Does Science Reveal Truth?

@deepthought said
Actually it was wildgrass, assuming you're talking about the Nature article, Hay et al (2015) [1]. The one that metalbrain posted was Holgate (2007) [2]. I've reproduced the links to save you searching back for them.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
[2] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2006GL028492

I stand corrected.

@medullah said
Nearly forgot - in the same documentary it gives the name of the Swedish scientist that first offered the CO2 theory which thatcher then wanted to capitalise on.

On a minor point, according to Wikipedia the first person to advance the idea was Joseph Fourier in the late 1820's as he realized the Earth ought to be considerably colder than it is [1]. Other early contributors to the theory were Claude Pouillet (1827, 1838), and Eunice Newton Foote (1856) who was a female scientist in the mid-19th Century. John Tyndall (1859). The two Swedish scientists mentioned on the Wikipedia page [2] were Svante Arrhenius (1896) and the person you're probably referring to was Nils Gustaf Ekholm who first used the term "greenhouse effect" in 1901.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History

@medullah said
The original post appears to have been taken down on youtube - however ........

I do have a copy of the soundtrack and happy to forward the Lawson interview to you and anyone else who wants to hear it.

PM me and I'll sort it out with you

Pete

Let me guess, the documentary in question was: The Great Global Warming Swindle. Which featured Nigel Lawson. It was found to be in breach of Ofcom (Office of Communications, the relevant governmental regulatory body) rules. You might want to take a look at the Ofcom ruling [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20100215200621/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb114/issue114.pdf

Edit: note the following sentence from the Wikipedia page:

A modified version (running time 55 minutes) of the documentary was shown in Germany. Many interviews were cut out, with others replaced by German speaking interview partners, and some claims were abandoned or changed. For example, the reference to Margaret Thatcher was replaced by the claim that Helmut Schmidt promoted climate change to justify the construction of nuclear power plants in Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#International_distribution

@deepthought said
Let me guess, the documentary in question was: The Great Global Warming Swindle. Which featured Nigel Lawson. It was found to be in breach of Ofcom (Office of Communications, the relevant governmental regulatory body) rules. You might want to take a look at the Ofcom ruling [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
[2] https://web.arch ...[text shortened]...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#International_distribution[/quote]

Given that many right-wing extremists keep making out the nonsense of the greenhouse theory being nothing more than some kind of extremist left-wing plot, I find it ironic that EVEN Margaret Thatcher, who I always thought as a right-wing extremists, accepted climate science that says CO2 causes global warming!
Mind you, she wasn't much like most other politician; being an odd combination of being BOTH evil (at least in my personal opinion) AND, at the same time, extremely intelligent; Two treats that I think are relatively rarely found in the same individual. I think usually stupidity and evil are just two different sides of the same coin; but not in that case.

P.S. I never thought those in the labour party were generally much better than those in the conservative and I never have or will vote for either. Thus I cannot be called either a left-wing or a right-wing sympathizer in particular. I often strongly disagreed with BOTH parties.

@humy said
we have already shown you the later studies complete with data thus we are not making it up as we go along.
Do you now deny we showed you here all those many links of those later studies?

Just one example;


Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise; Carling C. Hay, Eric Morrow, Robert E. Kopp & Jerry X. Mitrovica; Nature volume 517, pages 481–484(2015) ...[text shortened]... should not keep shouting "moron" to anyone here just because they show the evidence you don't like.

Accelerations are normal and cyclical. Is is stupid to conclude an acceleration is proof of anything unless you compare it to other accelerations in the past when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere. If there is not much difference then it is not an unusual acceleration and therefore not proof of AGW more than 50%.

Nature is still the main cause of GW today.

@metal-brain said
is stupid to conclude an acceleration is proof of anything

If its "stupid" to try and prove anything from an acceleration then I guess it must also be "stupid" to try and prove anything from NO acceleration. And yet you try and used what you thought was evidence of no acceleration as evidence against CO2 causing global warming. What does that make you then? Actually I wasn't trying to prove CO2 causing global warming from that acceleration (because I don't think that is by itself sufficient evidence for that but there is plenty of other much better evidence (proof, in fact) though) but rather just prove your premise for evidence for CO2 NOT causing global warming was false, which I (and we) did.

@humy said
Given that many right-wing extremists keep making out the nonsense of the greenhouse theory being nothing more than some kind of extremist left-wing plot, I find it ironic that EVEN Margaret Thatcher, who I always thought as a right-wing extremists, accepted climate science that says CO2 causes global warming!
Mind you, she wasn't much like most other politician; being an odd c ...[text shortened]... a left-wing or a right-wing sympathizer in particular. I often strongly disagreed with BOTH parties.

I'm pretty certain that there is no correlation between morality and intelligence. There is a correlation between knowing how to act and intelligence, so malevolent people can appear to be moral. The less intelligent ones tend to overdo it and give themselves away. But someone both intelligent and malevolent is really dangerous because they'll appear to be good; you'd like them, they know which buttons to press.

@metal-brain said
Accelerations are normal and cyclical. Is is stupid to conclude an acceleration is proof of anything unless you compare it to other accelerations in the past when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere. If there is not much difference then it is not an unusual acceleration and therefore not proof of AGW more than 50%.

Nature is still the main cause of GW today.

There are a large number of scientific institutions which dispute that. Currently global warming is driven by anthropogenic sources. There has been significant effort on the part of the oil industry to fund climate science denial, including denial of the scientific consensus, which is both clear and overwhelming.

In any case, you are yet to provide evidence, that has not been superseded, that there is no acceleration of sea level rise.

@deepthought said
There are a large number of scientific institutions which dispute that. Currently global warming is driven by anthropogenic sources. There has been significant effort on the part of the oil industry to fund climate science denial, including denial of the scientific consensus, which is both clear and overwhelming.

In any case, you are yet to provide evidence, that has not been superseded, that there is no acceleration of sea level rise.

Stop your lying!

You know damn well that I never claimed there was no acceleration. I corrected you more than once and you keep lying like the turd that you are. You are human scum!

@metal-brain said
and you keep lying like the turd that you are. You are human scum!

-and this is sometime after metal-brain said I was wrong and he was right purely because I was a "Brit" and all Brits are extremely emotional and that's with hatred included. Someone resorting to calling someone "turd" and "human scum" in a debate is a sure sign he knows he has already completely lost the argument and the debate.

@metal-brain said
Stop your lying!

You know damn well that I never claimed there was no acceleration. I corrected you more than once and you keep lying like the turd that you are. You are human scum!

In that case why were you so keen to select Holgate SJ (2007)? In the tenth post on page 11 of this thread you wrote:

You are making the mistake of "assuming" the recent acceleration in sea level rise is unusual and it is not unusual at all. Look at the long term graph from the NASA website. Accelerations and decelerations are cyclical with a 60-year oscillation and accelerations last roughly a little over 17 years. You are cherry picking an excerpt that you assumed meant something when it actually proves nothing. Do you think it is a coincidence that 1993-2010 is 17 years?

[Bolded text my emphasis.]

So, instead of screaming, why do you not attempt to demonstrate that the 1993 to 2010 acceleration is not unusual?

@humy said
If its "stupid" to try and prove anything from an acceleration then I guess it must also be "stupid" to try and prove anything from NO acceleration. And yet you try and used what you thought was evidence of no acceleration as evidence against CO2 causing global warming. What does that make you then? Actually I wasn't trying to prove CO2 causing global warming from that accelerat ...[text shortened]... prove your premise for evidence for CO2 NOT causing global warming was false, which I (and we) did.

There are 3 accelerations going back to 1880. You need to compare an acceleration with another acceleration when they are cyclical which they are. We are probably entering a deceleration period right now. If that proves to be the case should I cherry pick the deceleration rate to the past acceleration rate and tell you that proves you are wrong?

@deepthought said
In that case why were you so keen to select Holgate SJ (2007)? In the tenth post on page 11 of this thread you wrote:[quote]You are making the mistake of "assuming" the recent acceleration in sea level rise is unusual and it is not unusual at all. Look at the long term graph from the NASA website. Accelerations and decelerations are cyclical with a 60-year oscilla ...[text shortened]... screaming, why do you not attempt to demonstrate that the 1993 to 2010 acceleration is not unusual?

I have countless times. Do I have to post the NASA link for the 20th time or more? How many times have I asked you to look at the long term graph and compare one acceleration to the others? An acceleration period started at about 1940.

Since you are having such a difficult time doing simple tasks of measurements from a graph I have posted countless times have a child do it. A child is perfectly capable of such a simple task. What the bloody hell are you struggling with?

@metal-brain said
Do I have to post the NASA link for the 20th time or more?

-So we have to point out to you for the 20th time or more times it doesn't show what you claim it shows?

@humy said
-So we have to point out to you for the 20th time or more times it doesn't show what you claim it shows?

Then you are not looking. How much did sea level rise between 1940 and 1960? You can do it. If not, have a child measure it for you.