[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Aragorn, i may have asked you this before, but do I read you correctly when I conclude that you do in fact believe in anthropogenic climate change?[/quote]
I am inclined to believe we are affecting the climate, yes.
I am not inclined to believe the fraudulent IPCC and I am not inclined to believe that we account for the “vast majority” of climate change…yet.
The problem, of course, is that although we have a lot of potential areas for study, the entire thing is so politicized you can’t get any real science done. Not to mention the modelling programs in use are, shall we say, rudimentary at best. They are, in a word, something most chemists would feel embarrassed to have to rely on…and yet we rely on them for a LOT of the predictions made regardless of the fact that some of these computer models have not changed in over 20 years. Does that not set off alarm bells in anybody else’s head?? It is true, a number have. However you get very little agreement between any of them except to say “the temperature goes up”, which is roughly the equivalent of saying “a coin will land on one of its sides”.
Further, one of the most fundamental aspects of research is reproducibility. In fact, for decades, even over a century, there were specific sections in the scientific journals dedicated to fact checking and reproducing already completed experiments. They no longer exist. This is a problem for most areas of experimental science, but an even bigger problem for climate science specifically because of the computer models and in some cases lack of rigor. Whole areas of research are getting ignored–cosmic radiation effects on climate is not a joke although I recall someone either here or on another forum mentioned it with a laugh–and methodology is not being validated.
When methodology is not validated entire swaths of research are in effect unhinged from sound underpinnings. Climate science is a wreck specifically because of the politics interfering. There are well over 1,000 peer reviewed scientific articles casting open skepticism (as opposed to couched neutrality or implied skepticism) on some form of the IPCC line of catastrophism–whether methods, statistical application, or entirely different areas. These are being ignored as “scientifically illiterate” and “not real scientists” when in fact they come from major universities and pass full peer-review prior to being published. Some of these skeptical papers are even published by authors who also have AGW supporting work published.
In a scientific realm where your accuracy, rigor, and methodological validation not only affects the results but in fact can mightily influence political policy it is absolutely unforgivable to skimp or vilify on validation. In fact this is one area where it is imperative for an “all comers” approach to sort out the fittest. Throughout most of science’s history it has been the exact mechanism by which theories were rigorously validated or trashed. It seems not so now, and this is inappropriate.
So yes, I believe man affects the climate. I see no reason to dispute this at all as a matter of fact. The problem I have is that solid science is being ignored “because politics money”. There’s evidence the “climate sensitivity” is half or even less than half what it is supposed by the IPCC–note this does not say that man is not affecting climate. Dismissed as “climate denial”.
Stepping off my soapbox now.[/quote]
Thanks for the detailed and well-assembled post. This is how it’s done, folks.