That's like saying civil servants are smarter than you,...just because there are more of them who support unions than do not,...!!!
FAST
25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
FAST
No, its nothing like that.That's like saying civil servants are smarter than you,...just because there are more of them who support unions than do not,...!!!
FAST
Its like saying that you think smoking and tanning is really, really good for you based off this website you saw.
Then when its pointed out that 97% of doctors (and scientists) have stated that smoking and tanning gives you cancer you then go and claim its all a conspiracy to benefit politicians, 'cuz then they can raise the taxes on cigarettes and get filthy rich.
That's exactly what its like.
Okay fine. Instead of suggesting an alternate hypothesis you think we shouldn't bother with science until we have a complete understanding. I guess that would rule out ... well pretty much every aspect of science. But at least you will be happy not bothering about why the world is getting warmer.Actually, what I said is that scientists don't know enough about how the climate works to accurately predict what effect -- if any -- man-made CO2 emissions might have on the climate. The IPCC's spectacularly wrong predictions have confirmed that is the case.
As for how science works, a hypothesis can be rejected if it isn't supported by evidence. Science does not require an alternate hypothesis to be provided.
Finally, I do love how you once again tried to sneak in suggestions that my skepticism is based on religion (I'm an atheist, if you must know). Remind me -- which one of us has been following the ideas of a guy who says this is his "dharma." :thumb:
You're right. There is no consensus that all scientists agree on. What we do have though is a situation where the vast majority in the field see anthropogenic CO2 as a major factor. There is a reason for that and it's not a conspiracy.First, let's be clear about the so-called "consensus": There is NO SUCH THING....
On the other side, one of the few scientists suggesting an alternate explanation has been exposed as in his own words providing 'deliverables' to the oil industry.
Here's a good example of the pressure against good science by the oil industry.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/okl...fire-scientists-studying-dangers-of-fracking/Oklahoma oil billionaire demanded university fire scientists studying dangers of fracking
That is not an analogy, but if you want to use it, it can work the other way (doctors in a way are civil servants - one of the smartest bunch of people around).That's like saying civil servants are smarter than you,...just because there are more of them who support unions than do not,...!!!
FAST
No, its nothing like that.
Its like saying that you think smoking and tanning is really, really good for you based off this website you saw.
Then when its pointed out that 97% of doctors (and scientists) have stated that smoking and tanning gives you cancer you then go and claim its all a conspiracy to benefit politicians, 'cuz then they can raise the taxes on cigarettes and get filthy rich.
That's exactly what its like.
Here's a good example of the pressure against good science by the oil industry.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/okl...fire-scientists-studying-dangers-of-fracking/
Great points Frank!
It's astonishing that so many stupid ideas could get captured in just four sentences.Okay fine. Instead of suggesting an alternate hypothesis you think we shouldn't bother with science until we have a complete understanding. I guess that would rule out ... well pretty much every aspect of science. But at least you will be happy not bothering about why the world is getting warmer.
For the record:
-- Increases in the Earth's temperature are not unique to the 20th century. There have been increases and decreases in temperature throughout the planet's 4.5-billion year history.
-- There is no evidence of anything unusual having occurred in the 20th century or so far in the 21st century.
-- The computer model predictions have a 98 per cent failure rate. That's a little bit more substantive than saying they have fallen short of a "complete understanding."
-- It is not a contradiction of "every aspect of science" to believe that a hypothesis can be rejected if it isn't supported by evidence.
Certainly, it's not unusual for some people to find comfort believing in things that aren't supported by real-world evidence. You might say that is their "dharma." :thumb:
It's astonishing that so many stupid ideas could get captured in just four sentences.
For the record:
-- Increases in the Earth's temperature are not unique to the 20th century. There have been increases and decreases in temperature throughout the planet's 4.5-billion year history.
-- There is no evidence of anything unusual having occurred in the 20th century or so far in the 21st century.
-- The computer model predictions have a 98 per cent failure rate. That's a little bit more substantive than saying they have fallen short of a "complete understanding."
-- It is not a contradiction of "every aspect of science" to believe that a hypothesis can be rejected if it isn't supported by evidence.
Certainly, it's not unusual for some people to find comfort believing in things that aren't supported by real-world evidence. For some people, you might say that is their "dharma."
WRT that 98% failure rate.
Is there a margin of error in these computer model predictions?
The calculation came from the University of Hamburg:WRT that 98% failure rate.
Is there a margin of error in these computer model predictions?
http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/08/13/can-climate-models-explain-the-15-year-slowdown-in-warming/
You would have to contact the university to get more details.
97% of climatologists(or was it 100%) who made their predictions for last winter said that it was going to be warmer than the previous one(which had been extremely cold. Of course it was an easy guess based on the odds of having an even colder winter being very small. Guess what? They were wrong again.It repeats the fact that 97% of climatologists support the work of the IPCC, then lists the thousands and thousands of other scientists represented through almost every fucking major legit scientific organization who support the findings of the IPCC.
To claim that these thousands of scientists are pulling off a hoax for funding cash is just so stupid.
I can't believe anybody can believe it.
And then there were all the scientists about a decade ago who predicted a large increase in the number of hurricanes that would batter us mercilessly. Those of us who questioned this kind of stuff were compared to child molesters by some. It has been a decade since the last Cat 3 hurricane landed in the US.
Tornados are way down in the US year over year for quite a while now. Who out there thinks that if there had been an increase, that the greenies would have leaped at that as proof that us "luddites" (as the former British PM described us) were awful people.
The scientists are wrong. They have been wrong before on subjects and history has been shown that the scientific community will ostracize those who question until the proof is overwhelmingly against the establishment.
The far left socialists and Marxists with their discredited policies from the communist era leapt onto the bandwagon to attempt to funnel wealth from the hated rich countries to the corrupt third world, in their continuing desperation to somehow end capitalism. They found a receptive audience at the corruption infested UN. A body that has been useful in certain major world events but is given much more credibility that it deserves as it is stuffes with loyalists to a huge number of corrupt, tyrant nations eager to suck up hard earned western money.
The milder lefties used it as an excuse for some to raise taxes for their expensive pet projects and redistribution policies.
There is no shortage mindlessly naïve, guilt-ridden fools who need to somehow do something to ease their minds over living the good life while other irresponsible groups do not due to their own behaviour(which the naïve won't accept as the real reason for their poor living conditions). By accepting the increased burden created by this false man-made global warming idea, the guilt-ridden feel that they can look their children in the eye and be able to say that they did good for the world.
They have no problem making other hard working people suffer with lost jobs(as long as their own is protected) in order to "do what is right". And of course there is that bit of jealousy for those more successful.
Sure, there have been ice ages and periods of extreme warmth.It's astonishing that so many stupid ideas could get captured in just four sentences.
For the record:
-- Increases in the Earth's temperature are not unique to the 20th century. There have been increases and decreases in temperature throughout the planet's 4.5-billion year history.
But the last time the atmosphere hit 400ppm CO2 was 3.6 million years ago and global temperatures were about 2-3ºC warmer then they are now.
Just like the IPCC predicts for us this time.
False.-- There is no evidence of anything unusual having occurred in the 20th century or so far in the 21st century.
Maybe you're too stupid to notice, but 97% of climatologists report with 95% certainty that man has changed the climate.
And as repeatedly pointed out, so far in the 21st century the global temperature is rising exactly as predicted by the IPCC.
Sounds like you need to update your windows. 'Cuz if you're having a 98 per cent failure rate its probably 'cuz your computer is too stupid.-- The computer model predictions have a 98 per cent failure rate. That's a little bit more substantive than saying they have fallen short of a "complete understanding."
The models get better and better each year and are giving us a quite accurate prediction of what is going to happen.
But the evidence is there.-- It is not a contradiction of "every aspect of science" to believe that a hypothesis can be rejected if it isn't supported by evidence.
You just keep ignoring it.
I assume you are talking about yourself again.Certainly, it's not unusual for some people to find comfort believing in things that aren't supported by real-world evidence. You might say that is their "dharma." :thumb:
I mean really, just go and read the NASA site.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
It answers all of your questions and provides all the evidence an intelligent person needs to be able to understand.
Either that or I'll buy you some really strong cigarettes and some time in a tanning salon and you can show us all how much smarter you are then all scientists.
No, globally it was quite a warm winter, in fact a record warm winter.97% of climatologists(or was it 100%) who made their predictions for last winter said that it was going to be warmer than the previous one(which had been extremely cold. Of course it was an easy guess based on the odds of having an even colder winter being very small. Guess what? They were wrong again.
What happened for us is that the thermohaline current slowed down, most likely due to melting glacial water from Greenland.
That's a major climate event, and could lead to more colder winters for us even while the rest of the planet warms up.
I'm not wasting my time on the propaganda claim about the "97% consensus." It's been repeatedly debunked and I've wasted far too much time on it in previous threads.Sure, there have been ice ages and periods of extreme warmth.
But the last time the atmosphere hit 400ppm CO2 was 3.6 million years ago and global temperatures were about 2-3ºC warmer then they are now.
Just like the IPCC predicts for us this time.
False.
Maybe you're too stupid to notice, but 97% of climatologists report with 95% certainty that man has changed the climate.
And as repeatedly pointed out, so far in the 21st century the global temperature is rising exactly as predicted by the IPCC.
Sounds like you need to update your windows. 'Cuz if you're having a 98 per cent failure rate its probably 'cuz your computer is too stupid.
The models get better and better each year and are giving us a quite accurate prediction of what is going to happen.
But the evidence is there.
You just keep ignoring it.
I assume you are talking about yourself again.
I mean really, just go and read the NASA site.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
It answers all of your questions and provides all the evidence an intelligent person needs to be able to understand.
Either that or I'll buy you some really strong cigarettes and some time in a tanning salon and you can show us all how much smarter you are then all scientists.
And I see you've gone back to taking scientific conclusions that you don't like and falsely claiming the conclusions were made by me.
For the record, it was the University of Hamburg that determined that less than two per cent of the models' simulations predicted current temperature trends.
And let's not forget that it was NASA that said there has been a "flattening" of the Earth's temperature over the past 15 years.
The calculation came from the University of Hamburg:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/08/13/can-climate-models-explain-the-15-year-slowdown-in-warming/
You would have to contact the university to get more details.
Well, those details would be very important to learn, for if a failure to you (or climate change deniers) means a prediction wasn't absolutely accurate, then those "failures" are actually close enough to be correct to suggest a plausible projection of AGW.
I think you should take a look at the information that has been provided. Your interpretation is not supported by the University of Hamburg's conclusions.Well, those details would be very important to learn, for if a failure to you (or climate change deniers) means a prediction wasn't absolutely accurate, then those "failures" are actually close enough to be correct to suggest a plausible projection of AGW.
It is pure rubbish to say the University of Hamburg concluded that the issue with the models was that they weren't "absolutely accurate."
The problem was that the models predicted significant warming that didn't actually happen. Less than two per cent of the simulations predicted the warming trends that actually occurred.
That's true. He's also honest enough to look at the results and admit that the hypothesis that greenhouse gases are a primary driver of warming may be wrong.Interesting that Storch, the scientist behind that University of Hamburg study that says there's a pause in GW, is of the opinion that AGW exists due to greenhouse gases caused by human activity.
Did he go so far as to say that?That's true. He's also honest enough to look at the results and admit that the hypothesis that greenhouse gases are a primary driver of warming may be wrong.
Ah, the paper by von Storch, a mathemetician, who resigned as editor from Climate Research after several faked papers were published there under his watch.The calculation came from the University of Hamburg:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/08/13/can-climate-models-explain-the-15-year-slowdown-in-warming/
You would have to contact the university to get more details.
Storch was also caught fudging the numbers in one of his own papers, misrepresenting the data used in models.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5773/529.2.abstract
Not the most sterling of sources to start with.
No wonder you like that paper, its the same stupid old cherry picked dates argument.
Storch starts with super El Nino year 1998 and go 12 years to one of the colder years of the 21st century, just as you base all your claims on those cherry picked dates.
If he started with other dates his claim looks silly.
1999 = 0.41ºC to 2013 = 0.60º C - right about where the IPCC predicted at about 0.2ºC
Its another ridiculous cherry picking claim which has now been shown to be false with the latest rises in temperature, another paper by the seriously flawed and probably faker, Hans von Storch.
You should retract this claim, the author of that paper is not credible.Today, Science published an important comment pointing out that there were serious errors in a climate research article that it published in October 2004. The article concerned (Von Storch et al. 2004) was no ordinary paper: it has gone through a most unusual career. Not only did it make many newspaper headlines [New Research Questions Uniqueness of Recent Warming, Past Climate Change Questioned etc.] when it first appeared, it also was raised in the US Senate as a reason for the US not to join the global climate protection efforts. It furthermore formed a part of the basis for the highly controversial enquiry by a Congressional committee into the work of scientists, which elicited sharp protests last year by the AAAS, the National Academy, the EGU and other organisations. It now turns out that the main results of the paper were simply wrong.
- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...tion-with-repercussions/#sthash.TA9OAq5K.dpuf
