Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Facts Don't Lie:, page-171

First 171 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
squidgy

1,466 Posts.

542

27/05/18

11:24

Post #: 33324641
Share

Originally posted by mjp2 ↑

Sorry, squidgy, but your desire to not "get hung up on the fine details of each study" has led you to misread the study, and hence misinterpret that and falsely conclude that the medieval warming period was "similar in magnitude to now" and "it is unclear whether our current warm is unusual".

Your now changed position to "evidence points to the current warm, being at least as warm as the two notable past warms, and may indeed be the warmist" is still inconsistent with the detail in the science that you don;t want to get hung up with.

All you have done by "not getting hung up on the detail" is prove that doing so isn't, in fact, a good way to proceed with scientific study. It's led you astray.

Whereas the IPCC did in fact look at the detail and determined that the Medieval period was not as warm as now, for all the reasons I detailed and, taking other factors into account which we have not fully discussed here, also concluded that the current warm is in fact unusual, in all of pace, extent and cause of change.

You disagree with the IPCC based on a mistaken reading of the science.

So lets stop there with that. There is no point proceeding if you are going to effectively say, I'll ignore the detail I want to and conclude what I want to.

-----

The conclusion about models and CO2 as the causative factor for warming now is not mine, but the IPCC's, based on the focused examination you call for. I did not detail that here because it's there to be read elsewhere in the science.

---

As I have already said, you are attempting to examine climate science from a near first principles basis. But you are overlooking detail of the studies put to you and you have not looked at the full breadth of the IPCC work. Which is the full summary of the science available on this.

I don't see your "conclusions" so far as valid or well founded. And I don't see the process you have followed so far as scientific.

Expand

Starting with scoping views of data and then unraveling layers of detail is a standard scientific approach not favoured by all but useful for complex and multi-discipinary problems.
I do not know whether it is common with climate scientists but it is used widely in other areas.
It does not assume the answer and try and prove it in detail but tries to keep multiple hypothesis in mind while considering a wide field of data. Standard science in my experience but every investigator is free to follow his own path.
4 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 018 – Potatoes, TACOs, and the $120M helicopter heist

CIA

'Share long-term visions': Champion Iron rallies on mooted Nippon, Sojitz partnership

ASX Market Close: How a megadam in Tibet pushed us into the red

RML

Resolution Minerals appoints industry experts to fast-track US growth strategy

ASX Market Open: Extraordinary RBA vote minutes lead Oz futures into rise | July 23

First 171 Last