I mean, I know I'm a bit of a UKIP apologist but this is just disconcerting. I'll post the exchange.

(Story about UKIP spokesperson for energy saying climate change is "open for discussion")

Me:

That's unfortunate.

Him:

Why?

Me:

Because it really isn't open to question.

Of course, we ought to check the models and tweak the variables and constantly update the data, but there is such a thing as too much scepticism, and this is symptomatic of it.

Him:

Quote

Because it really isn't open to question.

All science is open to question, always.

Quote

Of course, we ought to check the models and tweak the variables and constantly update the data, but there is such a thing as too much scepticism, and this is symptomatic of it.

This is how the model's predictions stack up next to the real world temperatures.

Me:

Yet warming is quite clearly occurring. I'm not saying the scientists are and always will be 100pc right, I'm saying the ideas that warming is currently occurring and humans are the main cause are, at this point, pretty much indisputable.

The extent and speed of this warming is debatable, but the foundations are essentially laid.

Him:

There has been an 18 year "pause" in the rise of temperatures, despite a significant rise in CO2 levels. Warming is NOT currently occurring. The warming trend ended in 1998.

Me:

The climate isn't nearly as facile as you're making it out to be. You can't look at one set of aggregate data and think it immediately discredits the still solid idea. You think science should be open to question and inquiry? Of course you do, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and use one piece of data to discredit the whole idea, listen to the scientists and think about how it factors in to climatic dynamics.

And no, there hasn't been a "pause" in warming, there's been a slowdown. Indeed, actually looking at the available evidence too we can see scientists are able to formulate hypotheses, for instance this paper has endeavoured to show how the slowdown correlated with the strengthening of easterly surface winds in the tropics, and how that could impact global temperatures. Secondly, this study shows that had today's models been available in the 1990s, the slowdown in global warming could've been predicted.

Him:

No, there has been a distinct "pause" in global warming. It has stopped, not slowed down.

Me:

Okay then, even if that is the case it has no bearing on the assertions made by scientists to explain it.

So when you want to either try or refute them, or admit you probably have some more digging to do then I'll be willing to listen. And virtually any scientist will tell you (plus this paper), it doesn't even begin to discredit the theory.

Him:

Point is, their predictions have been proven wrong. They did not predict a pause in temperature increase, or that the Antarctic ice caps would grow, not shrink. There were also predictions that the poles would be ice free by 2013, which buoyant did not happen.

A theory is validated, or not, by its predictive value; by that criteria, there is plenty of scope to say that climate change is "open to question", as Roger Helmer has.

Me:

Quote

Point is, their predictions have been proven wrong.

Due to a variable which wasn't accounted for and has now been explained. I've also demonstrated how models back in the 1990s were inefficient and presented you with a paper which shows why this doesn't discredit the theory.

Quote

or that the Antarctic ice caps would grow, not shrink.

Except we know that happened because of the decline of CFCs in the atmosphere and the repairing ozone layer.

Quote

A theory is validatee, or not, by its predictive value

Right, and the theory still has considerable value--especially given all the evidence I've presented you with. Like I say, if you want to try and refute it in some way, I'm willing to listen.

Him:

Okay, get on your real account, not some troll throwaway, and let's have a proper conversation.

Me:

This is my real account; I disabled my last one.

Since I've presented you with the evidence from climate scientists themselves, and tried to engage you in a proper discussion, it's a bit rich for you to try and call me a troll. I haven't been rude to you at all, and if it seems like I have then I apologise of course, but all it feels like now is that you're refusing to engage the evidence on an ideological ground. And now you're just falling back on ad hominem.

If you want to have a discussion, then great let's have one. But only if you're going to do it properly and not throw your toys out of the pram because you don't like what you hear.

Him:

Quote

Because it really isn't open to question.

Really, you discredited yourself with this statement.

To claim anything scientific "isn't open to question" betrays that your commitment to the idea is no longer rational, and is more of an act of faith.

Me:

Now you're just misrepresenting what I said.

Immediately after it I said: "Of course, we ought to check the models and tweak the variables and constantly update the data, but there is such a thing as too much scepticism, and this is symptomatic of it." If you truly thought I had actually discredited myself, you wouldn't still be talking to me.

And you are the one trying to use a single (explained) occurrence to discredit an entire theory. Don't accuse me of taking something on faith and not being rational when I'm the one actually looking at the explanations and studying the science of the matter.

Him:

When a theory makes one very specific preeiction - that CO2 correlates with temperature, because it is the main driver of "climate change" (previously known as global warming) - and that turns out not to be the case, it absolutely raises questions about the theory.

The fact they produce an explanation after the fact proves nothing - other than how unreliable their understanding of climate is. What else are they going to have to provide an explanation for, after the fact?

Since the entire global warming scare rested in the predictions of those models, and the predictions turned out to be false, that absolutely calls the theory into question, as well as the usefulness of their predictions and models.

Quote

If you truly thought I had actually discredited myself, you wouldn't still be talking to me.

No, I'm allowing other readers to see how weak your arguments are by continuing the discussion.

Me:

When a theory makes one very specific preeiction - that CO2 correlates with temperature, because it is the main driver of "climate change" (previously known as global warming) - and that turns out not to be the case, it absolutely raises questions about the theory.

Except no scientist has ever claimed that this correlation is on a one-for-one basis which isn't affected by other exogenous variables. . .

Quote

Since the entire global warming scare rested in the predictions of those models, and the predictions turned out to be false, that absolutely calls the theory into question, as well as the usefulness of their predictions and models.

But the predictions aren't completely discredited because an 18-year slowdown/pause in the warming of the earth is the exception (since the Industrial revolution) and not the rule. Like I said above, no scientist has ever claimed that the relationship is exactly one-for-one, and when you find deviations you need to look for altered variables which account for that.

If there were no altered variables which account for that, then you'd have something in your argument, but you don't because we've identified that variables have shifted.

I fucking despair, sometimes.

>reddit

Also did you mean to have this in the flood?

Ummm, well originally no but yeah, go ahead and move it actually.

wow

such rekt