COP 26 How Successful?

[billvon]

I neither stated nor implied that Philadelphia would likely be underwater in the (relatively) near future.

That's the classic strawman fallacy. If your opponent in the argument can't argue against what you said, he can construct a strawman argument and argue against that instead.

 

[parmalee]

That's the classic strawman fallacy. If your opponent in the argument can't argue against what you said, he can construct a strawman argument and argue against that instead.

And all the while, making one's own position on the matter impossibly vague, thereby rendering it (supposedly) immune from criticism.

After all these years, I honestly have not figured out what aspects of AGW precisely that Sculptor "denies." Has anyone really worked this out?

 

[geordief]

Me neither.But he is smug so presumably he has a deck of cards up his sleeve to confound us poor innocents.

 

[sculptor]

And all the while, making one's own position on the matter impossibly vague, thereby rendering it (supposedly) immune from criticism.

After all these years, I honestly have not figured out what aspects of AGW precisely that Sculptor "denies." Has anyone really worked this out?

a little philosophy
Everything that you own owns you.
I do not have a "position".
I don't have a dog in this fight.
I don't have a pony in this race.
(use any other metaphor to your liking)
If you own a position, then that position owns you and you may have to defend it, which means that you will have to give up objectivity.
What sane intelligent person would willingly give up objectivity?

I just enjoy doing research.
I like to watch the science progress.
Remember that in the 50s-60s-70s the fear was that sulfur dioxide (SO2) would cool the planet and bring on another period of glaciation..........

Much like archaeology
You never know what the next shovel will unearth.
Most are mundane, some are paradigm shifters.

Perhaps you will find this from Stephen Schneider circa 1989 enlightening?

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

On the other hand, we … need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have

( the 2nd paragraph is not my scientific ideal)
but, sadly, a lot of people seem to buy into it

 

[sculptor]

Giving the devil his due:
It seems that before Stephen Schneider was an AGW alarmist, he was an AGC alarmist:

In 1971, Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. Ichtiaque Rasool titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138–141). This paper used a one-dimensional radiative transfer model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded that:

t is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °K. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

Rush to publish incomplete science and poor modeling-----4 years later he switched to AGW

 

[Write4U]

This 2020 debunking of climate denier Roy Spencer's may give some insight on the variables that must be accounted for when making climate change measurements.