
Here's what happens when you try to replicate Climate Contrarian Papers - nakedrobot2
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers?
======
Daishiman
And here's the gist of why the science of climate change is sound: all the
pieces of independent evidence consistently point towards the same
explanations of the observed data, and the resulting model has predictive
capacity.

Though climate change is mostly empirical, we can retroactively analyze the
precision of the models and their assumptions. And those assumptions, barring
certain issues that are known and understood, are being constantly corrected.

What exactly do climate contrarians have? They dispute individual pieces of
data but have no cohesive hypothesis to explain the observations of changes in
the natural environment.

Typical example: someone will dispute the data regarding temperature change.
So let's assume that it turns out there are inconsistencies in temperature
readings. Then what's the natural phenomenon that explains the exponential
increase in glacial melt across the world?

Another one: they dispute the influence of CO2 emissions on climate. Fine,
what's the oher potential explanation that derives in even better models for
explaining the observed climate phenomena?

It's the same story, over and over again, with every singular piece of
evidence disputed by nutjobs: Antarctic melt and geological temperature
fluxes, ocean acidification, precipitation changes and ENSO, sea level. It's a
neverending parade of clowns who cannot piece together the entirety of
evidence to make coherent, high-level explanations that derive in knowledge.

~~~
kjs3
_It 's a neverending parade of clowns who cannot piece together the entirety
of evidence to make coherent, high-level explanations that derive in
knowledge._

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm pretty sure most of them _can_ piece it
together, but they deliberately don't because that isn't the answer they want.
The big money denialists certainly understand the big picture, but it's
tactically more effective for them to attack the small bits in order to
engender doubt in people who actively _want_ to believe the scientists are
wrong.

------
blkhawk
TLDR; You find cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and
disregarding known physics.

~~~
vixen99
Projections of warming have certainly exceeded that which has been observed.
I'd be interested to know what data convinces you of the reality of CAGW
(<<catastrophic>> anthropogenic global warming).

Have you yourself come across many examples of cherry picking, curve fitting
(Are not the dire predictions of CAGW based exactly on that?), ignoring
inconvenient data and of course disregarding known physics (one trusts that
Richard Lindzen ex-MIT meteorology professor, has not been guilty of that)? Or
are you just quoting reports that happen to give a clear pass to CAGW
proponents?

~~~
Klapaucius
Any non-expert has a very limited capability of reviewing any significant
fraction of published literature on such a vast field in detail, yet alone
understand it or put it into proper perspective.

Therefore, we (me, you and the parent poster included) do need to rely on
experts to get an impression of what is most likely to be true. If you imagine
you can do this yourself to any significant degree, you are almost certainly
deluding yourself.

That's why a figure such as 97% is so convincing, the remaining 3% (including
Dr. Lindzen) nonwithstanding.

~~~
GlobalChange
Except when the prevailing "consensus" is wrong and has been deceitfully
pushed forward to enslave everyone else.

If one follows the argument for CO2 as culprit for global warming than our
energy problems are solved. All we have to do is build a CO2 power plant. We
can use a candle and have infinity energy. Actually, no one else need more
than a candle to do anything else. If we follow it to conclusion, we can melt
the Golden Gate bridge with a candle.

Any high school kid should be able to debunk this whole hallucinatory
craziness that has spread in our society because nowadays no one care to spare
a minute to actually think about the absurdity of the things they hear here
and there. And oh, if its on CNN, or someone with "credentials" said it, then
of course it is true. Well good luck.

There is no significant ocean level change. Ask the Dutch. The moment they
flee the Netherlands, then we may talk.

Glaciers are rescinding because that is what they have been doing since the
end of the last ice age (otherwise we would still be on a ice age). They
didn't started rescinding 30 years ago, or 150 years ago. It is an ongoing
process. Like climate is an ongoing process. It is not "climate change", as a
noun, it's climate changeS, as sentence. It has been doing so for, at least,
the past 4 billion years. That is the "norm", that it changes. Sometimes those
changes are just more accentuated. There is absolutely no evidence (despite
what everyone wants to convince themselves, wants to "believe" \- science has
gone from this a long time ago!) for CO2, let alone human influence on climate
on a global scale.

The article on The Guardian is deceitful. They should actually explain how
they got to the 97%. Not that it matter anyway. Science is not a democracy;
otherwise we could all "vote" for a free-gravity day so we could all enjoy a
day floating.

Those proposing the AGW cannot prove or advance their point. Models are video-
games. Shall we start giving driver's licence to those scoring high on Need
for Speed? It's a model, they are conceived to increase temperature if you
increase CO2. That's what it's going to do. It is programmed to do just that,
because that is how it was conceived.

That is in no way to say we should not look for renewable resources (since the
other one will eventually end anyway), nor that we should go on living like
there's no tomorrow (for certainly there won't be). CO2 is not a pollutant. It
is a fundamental element for life and it makes not direct harm.

If we continue on this path of demonizing the CO2 the consequences will be way
worse than a thousand degrees increase in temperature.

Clime do changes and all the living creatures on this planet will face it. We
must adapt, but we cannot change it. Not for better anyway and if we try we'll
just make thing a thousand times worse. Drought will come, tempests,
hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanoes, they will come (and go) no matter
what. We should and do need to be as prepared to them as possible, but we
cannot stop those phenomena from happening, no more than we can hold the Sun
in the middle of the sky.

What should be addressed is what to do. Because when changes comes and they
will indeed come, regardless, it won't care about political borders, religion,
skin color, gender, age.

This has long ceased to be a scientific debate. The science part is very
simple: they cannot sustain their arguments and the hypothesis fails. Now the
political/religious debate is another matter entirely. And that is the most
important one, because it can makes us slaves (Hitler will look like a
kindergarten prankster), or it can condemn half or more of the population of
the world to its own luck.

There should be no debate. There is no men made global warming by CO2. But
climate do changes and will change. The Sahara was not always a desert. Nor
the Amazon was always a forest. It's not us; that's just Nature. But we should
control pollution (air, soil and water), try to improve recycling (still very
inefficient), have better, renewable and more efficient sources, means of
transportation and storage of energy. We should do that for all the right
reasons and not the wrong one; certainly not based on lies and deceits.

And we do need to understand the issue. This is one of the most challenging
points in human life. It is certainly the most important issue of at least the
past ten thousand years. The science of it is actually not complicated at all
(high school knowledge). It doesn't mean we understand how it works; but we
can certainly say how it doens't work. And boy, with CO2, it does not work!

~~~
Klapaucius
You make a lot of claims. Mostly unsubstantiated. I do not see a point in
engaging.

And by the time the Dutch flee the Netherlands, it's too late to talk I'm
afraid.

------
seren
I think the most telling part is that 97% are agreeing on the same source of
global warming, while the remaining 3% have contradictory explanation. The
case would be stronger if there was one single alternate theory.

------
jimmcslim
> Benestad created a tool using the R programming language

Clearly the R programming language is PART OF THE WARMIST CONSPIRACY!

------
jamessb
In case anyone else was wondering, the John Cook who worked on the paper is
the one from the Global Change Institute [0], not the one from Singular Value
Consulting/the Endeavour blog [1].

[0]: [http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/john-cook](http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/john-cook)

[1]: [http://www.johndcook.com/blog/](http://www.johndcook.com/blog/)

------
78666cdc
Clickbait title.

------
generic_user
Next thing they will try is enlisting well known unqualified public
Personalities like AL Gore to scare the public with threats of mass extinction
and pictures of drowning polar bears...

~~~
njloof
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. Have a great day!

