Global warming still happening
Last response: in News & Leisure
johnsonma
February 27, 2014 7:34:27 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-worlds-top-scient...
It blows my mind how some people still think global warming is a myth.
It blows my mind how some people still think global warming is a myth.
More about : global warming happening
johnsonma
February 27, 2014 3:03:16 PM
You have to view it holistically. You can't just look at one pattern in one state for one instance to disprove that man is responsible for a lot of the climate change happening around the globe.
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidenc...
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidenc...
davcon
February 27, 2014 3:27:54 PM
Related resources
- I think my i5 is causing global warming - Forum
- Is global warming running out of letters? - Forum
- Another symptom of global warming - Forum
- Bush Tries to Hide Global Warming Truth - Forum
- BSOD Still Happening - Forum
musical marv
February 27, 2014 4:32:35 PM
johnsonma said:
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-worlds-top-scient...It blows my mind how some people still think global warming is a myth.
gropouce
February 28, 2014 12:12:10 AM
I don't know if it's global warming or something, but i didn't see any winter day this year.
We are in february, i live in the North of France where it used to be cold, and we didn't have any day under 0°C.
I've never seen that before.
When i take a look at my garden, i can see bees and buds.
Climate changes are naturals. But i'm sure that mankind has something to do with this one.
And as usual, some countries do not give a damn and will continue to do as they like, spitting in the mouths of others.
But do not worry, we will continue to require more effort to those who provide the most.
And those who don't care about will continue to rot the planet, reaping profits.
Humanity is stupid.
Oldman talks about Fukushima, and he is right but for the wrong reasons.
What has been the impact of Fukushima on the planet? some countries morons decided to halt all nuclear power generation because "Fukushima showed that it is dangerous." (this is dangerous in a region of high seismic activity and when there is a tsunami, assholes!)
What did they do then? they have imported Australian coal astronomical amount to compensate nuclear.
Basically, they stopped nuclear power, which is now the cleanest way to produce electricity for use highly polluting fossil fuels. Congratulations bands morons.
We are in february, i live in the North of France where it used to be cold, and we didn't have any day under 0°C.
I've never seen that before.
When i take a look at my garden, i can see bees and buds.
Climate changes are naturals. But i'm sure that mankind has something to do with this one.
And as usual, some countries do not give a damn and will continue to do as they like, spitting in the mouths of others.
But do not worry, we will continue to require more effort to those who provide the most.
And those who don't care about will continue to rot the planet, reaping profits.
Humanity is stupid.
Oldman talks about Fukushima, and he is right but for the wrong reasons.
What has been the impact of Fukushima on the planet? some countries morons decided to halt all nuclear power generation because "Fukushima showed that it is dangerous." (this is dangerous in a region of high seismic activity and when there is a tsunami, assholes!)
What did they do then? they have imported Australian coal astronomical amount to compensate nuclear.
Basically, they stopped nuclear power, which is now the cleanest way to produce electricity for use highly polluting fossil fuels. Congratulations bands morons.
Our PM Mr Tony Abbot claims there is no such thing as global warming ... which is a total embarrassment for our country.
Just to be sure he has completely defunded the department responsible for tracking it.
Then he moved on to defund the Drug and Alcohol Authority ... so in 12 months he can claim these issues are resolved ... because there is no reporting mechanism now in our country ... after 50 years ... all that data went down the drain.
In order to resolve the issue of illegal immigrants he put the military in charge and provides no reporting to the media ... and has almost started a war with Indonesia.
He then cut all subsidies to the auto industry and Ford, Holden (GM) and toyota are now closing ... he also cut the throats of our own fruit industry but gave Cadbury 25 Million ... go figure.
Job losses here will escalate beyond 100,000 people in less that 12 months and I imagine the Liberal Party (read Republicans) won't likely get back into power for another 20 years.
In the meantime he will sell Quantas (our 50% state owned Airline) and sail off into the sunset with his pal from Virgin airline.
He is screwing the country so the fat cats can get fatter ... and leaving us in a total mess.
He is also cutting the solar subsidies and the carbon tax since global warning is a myth.
Then his moronic foreign minister starts criticising China ...
I can't believe people in this country voted for such a complete idiot.
He has been in power less than 6 months ...
The secrecy, lies and deception is incredible here.
Nothing gets through to the media because Rupert Murdoch owns all of the TV stations and papers ... so you won't see or hear anything.
Murdoch also bankrolled his campaign.
The ABC (our govt Broadcaster0 has even been warned in writing not to criticise the Australian government.
Sadly we don't have secret police ... so I can't complain yet about being beaten and whipped.
Thats probably on his agenda for next week.
Global Warning FTW !!!
Just to be sure he has completely defunded the department responsible for tracking it.
Then he moved on to defund the Drug and Alcohol Authority ... so in 12 months he can claim these issues are resolved ... because there is no reporting mechanism now in our country ... after 50 years ... all that data went down the drain.
In order to resolve the issue of illegal immigrants he put the military in charge and provides no reporting to the media ... and has almost started a war with Indonesia.
He then cut all subsidies to the auto industry and Ford, Holden (GM) and toyota are now closing ... he also cut the throats of our own fruit industry but gave Cadbury 25 Million ... go figure.
Job losses here will escalate beyond 100,000 people in less that 12 months and I imagine the Liberal Party (read Republicans) won't likely get back into power for another 20 years.
In the meantime he will sell Quantas (our 50% state owned Airline) and sail off into the sunset with his pal from Virgin airline.
He is screwing the country so the fat cats can get fatter ... and leaving us in a total mess.
He is also cutting the solar subsidies and the carbon tax since global warning is a myth.
Then his moronic foreign minister starts criticising China ...
I can't believe people in this country voted for such a complete idiot.
He has been in power less than 6 months ...
The secrecy, lies and deception is incredible here.
Nothing gets through to the media because Rupert Murdoch owns all of the TV stations and papers ... so you won't see or hear anything.
Murdoch also bankrolled his campaign.
The ABC (our govt Broadcaster0 has even been warned in writing not to criticise the Australian government.
Sadly we don't have secret police ... so I can't complain yet about being beaten and whipped.
Thats probably on his agenda for next week.
Global Warning FTW !!!
johnsonma
February 28, 2014 8:20:21 AM
gropouce said:
I don't know if it's global warming or something, but i didn't see any winter day this year. We are in february, i live in the North of France where it used to be cold, and we didn't have any day under 0°C.
I've never seen that before.
When i take a look at my garden, i can see bees and buds.
Climate changes are naturals. But i'm sure that mankind has something to do with this one.
And as usual, some countries do not give a damn and will continue to do as they like, spitting in the mouths of others.
But do not worry, we will continue to require more effort to those who provide the most.
And those who don't care about will continue to rot the planet, reaping profits.
Humanity is stupid.
Oldman talks about Fukushima, and he is right but for the wrong reasons.
What has been the impact of Fukushima on the planet? some countries morons decided to halt all nuclear power generation because "Fukushima showed that it is dangerous." (this is dangerous in a region of high seismic activity and when there is a tsunami, assholes!)
What did they do then? they have imported Australian coal astronomical amount to compensate nuclear.
Basically, they stopped nuclear power, which is now the cleanest way to produce electricity for use highly polluting fossil fuels. Congratulations bands morons.
The thing is there is no evidence that natural causes within the climate could have been solely responsible for the changes we are seeing now. Sure the drought could be part of a cycle. What about the rising sea levels? What about the acidity of the oceans? What about the shrinking of the ice caps? What about the unique weather patterns we are seeing? If you look at the entire situation it become painfully obvious that we are responsible for a lot of it.
"Different influences on climate have different signatures in climate records. These unique fingerprints are easier to see by probing beyond a single number (such as the average temperature of Earth’s surface), and looking instead at the geographical and seasonal patterns of climate change. The observed patterns of surface warming, temperature changes through the atmosphere, increases in ocean heat content, increases in atmospheric moisture, sea level rise, and increased melting of land and sea ice also match the patterns scientists expect to see due to rising levels of CO2 and other human-induced changes"
Most of humanity is stupid, maybe we deserve whats coming next.
chunkymonster
February 28, 2014 8:34:49 AM
Oldmangamer_73 said:
Climate change is not a myth. Ask the Earth. It's just a myth that man can do anything about itjohnsonma said:
You have to view it holistically. You can't just look at one pattern in one state for one instance to disprove that man is responsible for a lot of the client change happening around the globe.Climate change is an absolute reality. The earth's climate has and will always change.
The debate about humans being the cause of wholesale climate change or being the cause of the dramatic changes in weather patterns is completely debatable. Think about it, the earth as we know is millions of years old, homo-sapiens arrived about 250K years ago, modern behaviors began about 50K years ago, and man has only been been industrialized for about 100 years. With a planet and ecosystem this old, how arrogant and presumptuous can human beings be to think that releasing "green house gases" is what is causing the changes in the climate.
Personally, I believe that the pole shift (not geomagnetic reversal, different altogether) has more to do with climate change than any effect that humans have on the environment.
Some studies report that the reason for the pole shift is due to man made climate change but I can't help consider that as a knee-jerk rush to blame humans for everything wrong with the climate. It also ignores the fact that the poles have shifted several times through the earth's history. And to add to that, the science has proven that the cause of pole shift is due to internal changes in the earth, not surface changes.
wanamingo
February 28, 2014 10:28:47 AM
musical marv
February 28, 2014 4:33:39 PM
gropouce said:
I don't know if it's global warming or something, but i didn't see any winter day this year. We are in february, i live in the North of France where it used to be cold, and we didn't have any day under 0°C.
I've never seen that before.
When i take a look at my garden, i can see bees and buds.
Climate changes are naturals. But i'm sure that mankind has something to do with this one.
And as usual, some countries do not give a damn and will continue to do as they like, spitting in the mouths of others.
But do not worry, we will continue to require more effort to those who provide the most.
And those who don't care about will continue to rot the planet, reaping profits.
Humanity is stupid.
Oldman talks about Fukushima, and he is right but for the wrong reasons.
What has been the impact of Fukushima on the planet? some countries morons decided to halt all nuclear power generation because "Fukushima showed that it is dangerous." (this is dangerous in a region of high seismic activity and when there is a tsunami, assholes!)
What did they do then? they have imported Australian coal astronomical amount to compensate nuclear.
Basically, they stopped nuclear power, which is now the cleanest way to produce electricity for use highly polluting fossil fuels. Congratulations bands morons.
musical marv
February 28, 2014 4:34:59 PM
musical marv
March 1, 2014 4:29:18 PM
Reynod said:
Our PM Mr Tony Abbot claims there is no such thing as global warming ... which is a total embarrassment for our country.Just to be sure he has completely defunded the department responsible for tracking it.
Then he moved on to defund the Drug and Alcohol Authority ... so in 12 months he can claim these issues are resolved ... because there is no reporting mechanism now in our country ... after 50 years ... all that data went down the drain.
In order to resolve the issue of illegal immigrants he put the military in charge and provides no reporting to the media ... and has almost started a war with Indonesia.
He then cut all subsidies to the auto industry and Ford, Holden (GM) and toyota are now closing ... he also cut the throats of our own fruit industry but gave Cadbury 25 Million ... go figure.
Job losses here will escalate beyond 100,000 people in less that 12 months and I imagine the Liberal Party (read Republicans) won't likely get back into power for another 20 years.
In the meantime he will sell Quantas (our 50% state owned Airline) and sail off into the sunset with his pal from Virgin airline.
He is screwing the country so the fat cats can get fatter ... and leaving us in a total mess.
He is also cutting the solar subsidies and the carbon tax since global warning is a myth.
Then his moronic foreign minister starts criticising China ...
I can't believe people in this country voted for such a complete idiot.
He has been in power less than 6 months ...
The secrecy, lies and deception is incredible here.
Nothing gets through to the media because Rupert Murdoch owns all of the TV stations and papers ... so you won't see or hear anything.
Murdoch also bankrolled his campaign.
The ABC (our govt Broadcaster0 has even been warned in writing not to criticise the Australian government.
Sadly we don't have secret police ... so I can't complain yet about being beaten and whipped.
Thats probably on his agenda for next week.
Global Warning FTW !!!
chunkymonster
March 3, 2014 7:54:53 AM
Oldmangamer_73 said:
So how many people do we need to eliminate? The ruling elite want to cull 90% of the Earth's human population. That seems a bit excessive to me. Thoughts?In addition, see what I mean about all the conflicting opinions out there?
Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co...
Not to get too of topic here but population control has been an agenda item of the globalists for the past 100 years or so. The ties to culling the population has ties to communism, environmentalists, radical humanists, and the eugenics movement. There is an honest and definite opinion by many elites that a possible solution is to withhold vaccines, limit food production, encourage controlled genocide, and enact legislation in certain countries to limit reproduction. There are documented instances of population control being taught in public schools! This isn't in foil hat stuff either, these are true and documented instances of policy makers and influencers pushing a population control agenda, i.e. Agenda 21, as a legitimate means to make the world a better place.
Fortunately, in order to make population control a reality, there would truly have to be a facist/draconian government and the means to enforce population control; see China. In America, I doubt that it could become a reality any time soon but as civil liberties are continuously eroded and progressive agendas breed ignorant and complicit electorates, it wouldn't take but a few generations for the useful idiots to begin believing it is in their best interest to get a "parenting license" and accept limits on the number of children they can have.
But I digress...
chunkymonster
March 3, 2014 8:09:33 AM
wanamingo said:
Its a closed system. Anything unnatural modifying that closed system has an effect. But its was -10F (-23C) last so...
If there is even a 1% chance that what we are doing is going to have longterm lasting impacts things need to change.
Personally, IMO, I agree, that if there is a chance human activity is having long term effects that appropriate and necessary steps should be taken to mitigate if not possibly reverse those effects. I take a better safe than sorry approach in that sense. Given the diversity of opinion and the fact that the leading "experts" at the IIPC were busted falsifying date to achieve a political agenda, I just can't justify action or accept the "data" that "proves" humans do have an effect. I also have a hard letting go of the simple fact that it has been proven the earth has been through many climate change cycles in the past several million years and the simple fact that industrialized humans have only been on this earth for the past 100+ years. I find it extremely hard to believe that 100+years of industrial activity trumps the naturally occurring and repeating cycles of the earth. Does that activity speed it up, does it cause a change that is not naturally occuring? Again, when the experts falsify data, they lose an credibility they may have had regardless of whether they were correct or not.
Well there Johnson, the reason why people think anthropomorphic global warming is a myth is because it is. The AGW proponents cherry-pick a lot of data using different methodologies and use a large number of "correction" factors to try to make the model fit their prediction. The actual truth as best anybody can tell is that there are many and poorly-understood climate cycles occurring. If you use the same types of proxy data that we used to say what temperature was thousands of years ago to what it is today, we are nothing out of the ordinary. The CO2 seems to be a red herring, especially as it has increased *after* the short-term temperature trend went up.
This page has several of those reconstructed data sets put in graphs of varying time periods. In particular look at any one single data set that goes back further than the 1880-present direct thermometry line that the AGW crowd loves to use. (We were nearly but not yet completely done coming out of the Little Ice Age in 1880 so of course it is going to be warmer today.) We see that there is a significant amount of disagreement between predicted temperatures using different proxy methods and that temperatures in the past 6000-800 years were potentially much warmer than today.
The really surprising thing is that there are supposedly well-educated people that think that CO2 AGW is actually true and believe all of the "oh noes, we're all going to drown!!" hyperbole. AGW was a theory based on some early 20th-century observations of temperatures of gases in closed containers when exposed to sunlight plus seeing a few decades worth of direct thermometry results but not having other data available to them yet (satellite data, ice cores, etc.) It should have died a quiet death like millions of other "what-if" theories. But the statists in government looking for something to allow them plenary control over everything and climatologists looking to expand their prestige and grant-gathering abilities not only kept the faulty theory alive, they pushed it front and center to the national stage.
But hey, who am I as an engineer and scientist with post-doctoral level training to point out that science by definition isn't "settled" by consensus declaration as AGW supposedly is? I must be a paid shill of Exxon, despite working in a completely different industry and having never accepted even a single penny from anybody in any industry.
This page has several of those reconstructed data sets put in graphs of varying time periods. In particular look at any one single data set that goes back further than the 1880-present direct thermometry line that the AGW crowd loves to use. (We were nearly but not yet completely done coming out of the Little Ice Age in 1880 so of course it is going to be warmer today.) We see that there is a significant amount of disagreement between predicted temperatures using different proxy methods and that temperatures in the past 6000-800 years were potentially much warmer than today.
The really surprising thing is that there are supposedly well-educated people that think that CO2 AGW is actually true and believe all of the "oh noes, we're all going to drown!!" hyperbole. AGW was a theory based on some early 20th-century observations of temperatures of gases in closed containers when exposed to sunlight plus seeing a few decades worth of direct thermometry results but not having other data available to them yet (satellite data, ice cores, etc.) It should have died a quiet death like millions of other "what-if" theories. But the statists in government looking for something to allow them plenary control over everything and climatologists looking to expand their prestige and grant-gathering abilities not only kept the faulty theory alive, they pushed it front and center to the national stage.
But hey, who am I as an engineer and scientist with post-doctoral level training to point out that science by definition isn't "settled" by consensus declaration as AGW supposedly is? I must be a paid shill of Exxon, despite working in a completely different industry and having never accepted even a single penny from anybody in any industry.
johnsonma
March 3, 2014 3:25:46 PM
Let me ask you a question since you are an engineer and a scientist! What happens in a system or an equation when you introduce unknown variables? What about when you change existing variables?
You point out one graph of data to prove your point yet there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that agree on the idea that man is affecting the climate. To counter this you say that all those papers cherry-pick data and use correction factors? So basically, just about every climate scientist is wrong or blowing smoke? Not only that but its part of a government takeover?
Sorry you lost me at government takeover.
You point out one graph of data to prove your point yet there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that agree on the idea that man is affecting the climate. To counter this you say that all those papers cherry-pick data and use correction factors? So basically, just about every climate scientist is wrong or blowing smoke? Not only that but its part of a government takeover?
Sorry you lost me at government takeover.
chunkymonster
March 4, 2014 5:19:49 AM
There is absolutely no global warming in Australia ... the Liberal Party (Tony Vladimir Abbott) has banned the topic and fired all of the scientists.
In fact he has no Minister for Science ... he disolved Science and replaced it with Religion.
He also gagged the CSIRO.
Currently they are confined to looking at stars and such.
Their next project is to destroy the Great Barrier Reef by dumping enough dredge spoil in it to kill off everything ... the Queensland National Party is personally on the shovels with this one,
In fact he has no Minister for Science ... he disolved Science and replaced it with Religion.
He also gagged the CSIRO.
Currently they are confined to looking at stars and such.
Their next project is to destroy the Great Barrier Reef by dumping enough dredge spoil in it to kill off everything ... the Queensland National Party is personally on the shovels with this one,
johnsonma
March 4, 2014 9:28:57 AM
chunkymonster said:
johnsonma said:
peer reviewed papersHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You research, write your findings, I agree with it. Peer review.
Peer review is how we get "hard proof", until the next "great discovery" that revises or debunks said hard proof.
Well I suppose science is completely useless then? Lets just give up and go back to living in caves since you have proven that science is a sham. Well done!
johnsonma
March 4, 2014 9:34:39 AM
Reynod said:
There is absolutely no global warming in Australia ... the Liberal Party (Tony Vladimir Abbott) has banned the topic and fired all of the scientists.In fact he has no Minister for Science ... he disolved Science and replaced it with Religion.
He also gagged the CSIRO.
Currently they are confined to looking at stars and such.
Their next project is to destroy the Great Barrier Reef by dumping enough dredge spoil in it to kill off everything ... the Queensland National Party is personally on the shovels with this one,
Sounds like a real shity situation. I would tell you to come to America if you want to be a scientist but we just got rid of it too thanks to Chunky's astounding revelations. Maybe him and Abbot are secretly working for the pope in an effort to stamp out science and restore religion to its rightful place.
chunkymonster
March 4, 2014 9:55:32 AM
johnsonma said:
chunkymonster said:
johnsonma said:
peer reviewed papersHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You research, write your findings, I agree with it. Peer review.
Peer review is how we get "hard proof", until the next "great discovery" that revises or debunks said hard proof.
Well I suppose science is completely useless then? Lets just give up and go back to living in caves since you have proven that science is a sham. Well done!
Ahhh yes...the classic "agree with me or nihilism" response.
You can go back living in a cave, my family and I are quite happy in our center hall colonial, thank you very much!
Nothing wrong with peer review, but when it's held up as the end-all-be-all answer and then proven incorrect by independent review, as the IIPC findings were, then peer review is a joke.
johnsonma said:
Sounds like a real shity situation. I would tell you to come to America if you want to be a scientist but we just got rid of it too thanks to Chunky's astounding revelations. Maybe him and Abbot are secretly working for the pope in an effort to stamp out science and restore religion to its rightful place.Snarky much?! And, you give me too much credit. If I was in any form of collusion to rid the world of anything, it wouldn't be science, it would be close minded progressive ideologues like yourself.
johnsonma
March 4, 2014 12:04:20 PM
If you cannot respond to a post without resulting to bigotry maybe you shouldn't post at all? Apparently you do not enjoy my sarcasm, that much is clear.
Peer reviewed study is not the end all be all. It is merely the best answer available until evidence and scientific study prove otherwise. One "independent" review or publication that contradicts this view is a start. Now you only need a couple more decades and thousands of more studies that collaborate on this view for it to be taken seriously. This is science at work. You will excuse me if I make light of the fact that you demean the whole scientific process because you disagree with it.
The real argument here is how much we are affecting the climate not "if" we are. Any person that looks at this with a rational view that is not corrupted with political ideologies can see this. Most of the world sees this as well.
Peer reviewed study is not the end all be all. It is merely the best answer available until evidence and scientific study prove otherwise. One "independent" review or publication that contradicts this view is a start. Now you only need a couple more decades and thousands of more studies that collaborate on this view for it to be taken seriously. This is science at work. You will excuse me if I make light of the fact that you demean the whole scientific process because you disagree with it.
The real argument here is how much we are affecting the climate not "if" we are. Any person that looks at this with a rational view that is not corrupted with political ideologies can see this. Most of the world sees this as well.
johnsonma said:
Let me ask you a question since you are an engineer and a scientist! What happens in a system or an equation when you introduce unknown variables? What about when you change existing variables?You have an unsolvable set of equations if the number of variables outnumbers the number of equations. You thus have to guess as to what some variables are to try to solve the equation, and if you get it wrong, you get the wrong answers. This is exactly what the AGW folks have done- they try to guess as to what the equations/variables are. There's nothing absolutely wrong with that as long as they realize that they really do not know what's going on. However, they've started to think that they are correct and the science is "settled" despite their models NOT being accurate (e.g. the Al Gore IPCC "hockey stick" graph) and thus their equations of climate system dynamics aren't correct.
Quote:
You point out one graph of data to prove your point yet there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that agree on the idea that man is affecting the climate. To counter this you say that all those papers cherry-pick data and use correction factors? So basically, just about every climate scientist is wrong or blowing smoke? Not only that but its part of a government takeover?Yes. Laymen think that peer review is the ultimate check and balance but those of us in scientific fields know peer review is only as good as the peers doing the reviewing. This article from JAMA illustrates the principle very well even though it's about a different subject. That JAMA article written by well-known academics (who undoubtedly do peer review of others) argues for clinical trial raw data from non-industry sources to only be available to certain non-industry researchers (instead of being open to any medical researcher) because the "wrong" researchers may arrive at the "wrong" conclusion using the exact same data. And note that this is with a topic which is very amenable to top-quality research. You can have multiple double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trials and results valid results are easily repeatable in further studies. So it's much harder to try to BS results in a medical study than with a single, unrepeatable, purely observational trial with multiple known and unknown confounders such as with climate change studies. So riddle me this- if those academic "peers" are willing to subscribe to a censoring groupthink with easily repeatable medical studies, what makes you think they won't do that with something where falsehoods are much harder to disprove like climate studies?
Quote:
Sorry you lost me at government takeover.It is very clearly the case as the government is certainly using global warming/climate change to further its regulatory reach. I don't know how you are lost unless you absolutely aren't looking at what's going on with the government of this country.
johnsonma said:
Peer reviewed study is not the end all be all. It is merely the best answer available until evidence and scientific study prove otherwise. One "independent" review or publication that contradicts this view is a start. Now you only need a couple more decades and thousands of more studies that collaborate on this view for it to be taken seriously. This is science at work. You will excuse me if I make light of the fact that you demean the whole scientific process because you disagree with it.
Like I said before, the peer group in climatology is very closed and outside opinions are NOT tolerated. The language of "settled science" and "deniers" tells us that very easily and the reason is because insignificant to no AGW = climatology labs lose boatloads of grant funding. So you will essentially never get anybody doing climatology peer review who doesn't subscribe to the AGW groupthink and thus you get the "consensus" on the issue. Groupthink is the antithesis of the scientific process. I think you can ask people like Galileo who challenged the then-prevalent theocratic groupthink in about that one!
Quote:
The real argument here is how much we are affecting the climate not "if" we are. Any person that looks at this with a rational view that is not corrupted with political ideologies can see this. Most of the world sees this as well.The "if" and "how much" are essentially the same question- are we affecting climate to any actually significant degree? Sure, just in being part of a system we are having some sort of an effect. But if we have about as much effect as a single grasshopper has an effect on 30 acres worth of crops, then we don't need to worry.
johnsonma
March 5, 2014 1:55:32 PM
You are over complicating the equation question. Even if you don't know the answer or the variables, if you change the variables you will change the answer. So in essence we are changing the equation of the climate regardless. "Maybe" its not enough to have an effect but you have to agree in principle that we are changing the equation.
By the way, most of the models are very accurate considering the amount of data infused with them. This myth that they are somehow wrong is merely propaganda. Considering the immense amount of variables in the climate, the models are very accurate. They will never be 100% right because of the nature of the equation but they are pretty damn close. Close enough to be taken seriously. I wouldn't use a politicians graph as any sort of deciding factor if I was you.
I find it interesting how you attack the system or the scientists instead of the ideas and evidence they present. Raw data for many of the studies is out there, the problem is that when reanalyzed the same results are found.
It seems to me that you cannot present evidence of anything to support your position. In fact, from what i'm gathering your position is merely that all the climate scientists are corrupt and in league with the government to help them take more control through regulatory means.
Why are the studies so skewed in favor of climate change EVEN though many different countries are doing the studies? Is it a global takeover by all governments?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientif...
I get that your skeptical on some of the studies because of the Al Gore BS and some of the other less reputable studies but please realize how irrational you are being in denying so much evidence over such a large period of time. Even if you took half of the studies away that point to man made climate change you will still have a STAGGERING amount of difference between those studies left and the studies that contradict them.
By the way, most of the models are very accurate considering the amount of data infused with them. This myth that they are somehow wrong is merely propaganda. Considering the immense amount of variables in the climate, the models are very accurate. They will never be 100% right because of the nature of the equation but they are pretty damn close. Close enough to be taken seriously. I wouldn't use a politicians graph as any sort of deciding factor if I was you.
I find it interesting how you attack the system or the scientists instead of the ideas and evidence they present. Raw data for many of the studies is out there, the problem is that when reanalyzed the same results are found.
It seems to me that you cannot present evidence of anything to support your position. In fact, from what i'm gathering your position is merely that all the climate scientists are corrupt and in league with the government to help them take more control through regulatory means.
Why are the studies so skewed in favor of climate change EVEN though many different countries are doing the studies? Is it a global takeover by all governments?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientif...
I get that your skeptical on some of the studies because of the Al Gore BS and some of the other less reputable studies but please realize how irrational you are being in denying so much evidence over such a large period of time. Even if you took half of the studies away that point to man made climate change you will still have a STAGGERING amount of difference between those studies left and the studies that contradict them.
Johnson, you can always have a relatively accurate mathematical eqution or set of equations to fit a data set of past events. That's just a case of doing curve fitting with polynomial interpolation using a sufficiently large number of polynomials (variables.) This may or may not accurately describe the actual underlying process and if not, predictions of future data points with that equation will be inaccurate.
Also consider that these AGW folks are stating that very small changes in temperature are important- tenths of a degree K for temperature ranges in the ~300 K range, or less than a 1/10% change. Their models need to be far more accurate than that about of difference in predicting temperature patterns over many years to even be valid. The IPCC hockey stick graph surely isn't anything of the sort.
I most certainly did present examples of the groupthink in scientific fields and a very good reason why this occurs. I think you must not have much of a reply other than the appeal to authority you started the thread off with as a reply. The only real proof will be to wait several decades and see if the AGWists' current models are more accurate than the IPCC hockey stick graph.
Also consider that these AGW folks are stating that very small changes in temperature are important- tenths of a degree K for temperature ranges in the ~300 K range, or less than a 1/10% change. Their models need to be far more accurate than that about of difference in predicting temperature patterns over many years to even be valid. The IPCC hockey stick graph surely isn't anything of the sort.
I most certainly did present examples of the groupthink in scientific fields and a very good reason why this occurs. I think you must not have much of a reply other than the appeal to authority you started the thread off with as a reply. The only real proof will be to wait several decades and see if the AGWists' current models are more accurate than the IPCC hockey stick graph.
johnsonma
March 6, 2014 8:34:38 AM
Again you are trying to obfuscate the simple idea I am presenting. Let me try one last time. The earth normally releases so much CO2 into the atmosphere because of normal processes. Now you have humans adding to this process by unnatural means. We have effectively changed that variable in the equation. I'm not saying that this means the answer to that equation will be climate change. All I'm saying is that we are changing the variables regardless. I am setting a point for further discussion to be based on by reaching an understanding on a simple premise.
You presented examples of groupthink in scientific fields, that is correct. Now you have to prove to me that it has affected the thousands of studies done over the decades on climate change. You can't say they are all victims of groupthink and leave it at that. It would be a completely hollow argument if you did, much like conspiracy theories. Where is the evidence in relation to the studies? How can you prove that all of these studies were falsified? What evidence do you have on the thousands of scientists?
Why are there not more independent studies refuting climate change? There is plenty of people that would fund these studies yet there are hardly any and none of which are credible.
Current models are more accurate. Guess we have real proof then?
You presented examples of groupthink in scientific fields, that is correct. Now you have to prove to me that it has affected the thousands of studies done over the decades on climate change. You can't say they are all victims of groupthink and leave it at that. It would be a completely hollow argument if you did, much like conspiracy theories. Where is the evidence in relation to the studies? How can you prove that all of these studies were falsified? What evidence do you have on the thousands of scientists?
Why are there not more independent studies refuting climate change? There is plenty of people that would fund these studies yet there are hardly any and none of which are credible.
Current models are more accurate. Guess we have real proof then?
teddymines
March 6, 2014 9:27:26 AM
It certainly seems logical that mankind has some impact on the climate.
Virtually everything produces heat as a by-product: production of energy, mining for materials, manufacturing, construction, shipping, agriculture, transportation, mowing your lawn, treating water, heating your home, cooling your home, even using your computer.
And take a look at ways we're altering the atmospheric humidity level and groundwater levels: watering lawns in the deserts (WTF is up with THAT?), making dams (increases water surface area), agriculture in areas that naturally lack water, reducing water seepage into the ground by highways/cities/homes while diverting stormwater to oceans and lakes (increasing their surface areas).
So yeah, I think we're going to keep seeing a net increase in frequency of extreme weather events, not necessarily in terms of warming or cooling, but in how the atmosphere reacts when enough of its knobs have been messed with.
Virtually everything produces heat as a by-product: production of energy, mining for materials, manufacturing, construction, shipping, agriculture, transportation, mowing your lawn, treating water, heating your home, cooling your home, even using your computer.
And take a look at ways we're altering the atmospheric humidity level and groundwater levels: watering lawns in the deserts (WTF is up with THAT?), making dams (increases water surface area), agriculture in areas that naturally lack water, reducing water seepage into the ground by highways/cities/homes while diverting stormwater to oceans and lakes (increasing their surface areas).
So yeah, I think we're going to keep seeing a net increase in frequency of extreme weather events, not necessarily in terms of warming or cooling, but in how the atmosphere reacts when enough of its knobs have been messed with.
chunkymonster
March 6, 2014 9:50:49 AM
johnsonma said:
Again you are trying to obfuscate the simple idea I am presenting. Let me try one last time. The earth normally releases so much CO2 into the atmosphere because of normal processes. Now you have humans adding to this process by unnatural means. We have effectively changed that variable in the equation. I'm not saying that this means the answer to that equation will be climate change. All I'm saying is that we are changing the variables regardless. I am setting a point for further discussion to be based on by reaching an understanding on a simple premise.I can't believe you went down the CO2 road when so many studies completely disprove CO2 has any significant impact on the climate. Heck, some will even argue that increased CO2 is GOOD!
Sure, you can argue that it was an example used to further your point of changing equation variables, but you could have at least have chosen something other than CO2.
Acceptable answers would have included; water vapor, polar shifts, and solar irradiance.
teddymines
March 7, 2014 5:06:35 AM
johnsonma
March 7, 2014 7:56:44 AM
Oldmangamer_73 said:
Let's accept the premise man is causing it. So how do we stop or reverse it? I said before, climate change, even drastic climate change, has happened in the past with no influence of mankind whatsoever. So, if we accept the premise that man is causing climate change, how many people do we need to eliminate from the planet to reverse global warming?You think this is a loaded question, but there are many scientists and environmentalists that want exactly that; the elimination of a good part of the population, and those who still live should go back to living in caves with the smallest carbon footprint possible. I'm not joking.
There are tons of new technology just for that purpose OMG. They have talked about using reflective material in the poles to help grow them back to previous levels. This is a big one in my opinion because the changing air and water currents that are the result of polar shrinkage are big factors in the climate. Scientists predicted that as the poles shrank the air currents from Canada would dip farther south more frequently. The southern winter apocalypse is an example of this.
johnsonma
March 7, 2014 8:19:30 AM
chunkymonster said:
I can't believe you went down the CO2 road when so many studies completely disprove CO2 has any significant impact on the climate. Heck, some will even argue that increased CO2 is GOOD!
What studies?
Check this out: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
"The implication is that global climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2, although valid for
the idealized Charney definition of climate sensitivity, is a considerable understatement of
expected equilibrium global warming in response to imposed doubled CO2. Additional warming,
due to slow climate feedbacks including loss of ice and spread of flora over the vast high-latitude
land area in the Northern Hemisphere, approximately doubles equilibrium climate sensitivity."
chunkymonster
March 7, 2014 11:28:44 AM
johnsonma said:
What studies?Check this out: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
"The implication is that global climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2, although valid for
the idealized Charney definition of climate sensitivity, is a considerable understatement of
expected equilibrium global warming in response to imposed doubled CO2. Additional warming,
due to slow climate feedbacks including loss of ice and spread of flora over the vast high-latitude
land area in the Northern Hemisphere, approximately doubles equilibrium climate sensitivity."
Aww, c'mon...you're smarter than that...the information is out there...
So, let's break this down...the below information was taken from multiple sources...Google search key words "global warming facts"
Is the climate changing? Yes. The climate has and always will change.
Is CO2 a "green house gas"? Yes. However, it has a minor effect on global temperature change. Water vapor and methane have a far greater impact on changing global temperatures.
Is CO2 the primary driver of climate change? No. There are at least 22 drivers that can effect temperature change, CO2 is a minor and just one of many climate change drivers, i.e.; volcanoes, the earths rotation, the earth wobble, change in the poles, solar irradiation, plate tectonics, etc...
Has there been a significant increase in the earth's temperature as a result of CO2? No. Accurate temperature readings from satellites and weather balloons show there has been no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, measurements taken with ground based thermostats recorded an increase in surface temperature since 1958. Many believe ground based thermometer readings are bias due to the heat island effect.
Are man-made CO2 emissions the primary source of CO2? No. Over 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural non man-made sources.
Has man-made CO2 emissions increased the earth's temperature? No. There is no evidence to support that man-made CO2 emissions have a significant effect on atmospheric temperatures. There is no man-made warming that can be detected outside of natural systems and known climate variations.
Does CO2 cause the earth's temperature to rise? No. Changes in atmospheric temperature occur before the significant rise in CO2 levels as proven by a NASA study on ice core samples.
Is climate change a settled science? No. Climate change is a non-linear and chaotic process with multiple variables that no known existing computerized climate model can accurately predict.
The equation is too complex to accurately model let alone state that an accurate prediction can be made. In all reality, one significant earthquake or volcanic eruption could immediately invalidate any computer model. As I stated before, I personally take a "better safe than sorry" approach when it comes to climate change. If man is having a significant effect, then we need to mitigate those changes. However, a reasoned approach to the climate change debate and the effects of CO2 are inconclusive at best and some times even contradictory to what is being pushed by global warming alarmists.
chunkymonster
March 7, 2014 11:51:19 AM
johnsonma said:
There are tons of new technology just for that purpose OMG. They have talked about using reflective material in the poles to help grow them back to previous levels. This is a big one in my opinion because the changing air and water currents that are the result of polar shrinkage are big factors in the climate. Scientists predicted that as the poles shrank the air currents from Canada would dip farther south more frequently. The southern winter apocalypse is an example of this.I'm sorry but the notion of reflective material reminds me of the Simpson's episode "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" where he makes a sun blocking machine to so the people would use more electricity from his nuclear plant. But I digress...
In all seriousness, if CO2 is rising and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, wouldn't putting a reflective material over the poles just cause more of a greenhouse effect by having he reflective material more powerfully deflect the suns energy back into the atmosphere? I'm just saying...
Given the satellite images (as linked by OMG any many other articles prove) show the ice caps are growing and not shrinking; me personally, I chalk the "southern winter apocalypse" up to the fact that the north pole has shifted south into Canada and changes to the east coast jet stream.
johnsonma
March 7, 2014 1:01:47 PM
Oldmangamer_73 said:
Not sure the shrinking Arctic ice cap is really an argument. The Antarctic ice cap has been growing for a while now. That's why you really only hear about the Arctic cap shrinking and growing from Summer to Winter. The below article is a year old I admit, but I think it still supports my fundamental argument. The Arctic polar ice cap increased 50%, all by itself without man doing a damn thing. Even if we wanted to, could we increase the size of the entire Arctic ice cap 50%? Even if we tried and put forth massive resources? IMHO, I don't think we could even come close. Global warming? Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent!
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satell...
There are two kinds of ice to look at. Land ice and sea ice. While sea ice may be growing land ice is still receding and that is the most important factor. The best indicator I think is the rise in sea level. Also, the main thing is the temperature of the oceans. If the currents in the ocean are affected by a rise in temperature then we will really start to feel the effects.
johnsonma
March 7, 2014 1:12:53 PM
chunkymonster said:
I'm sorry but the notion of reflective material reminds me of the Simpson's episode "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" where he makes a sun blocking machine to so the people would use more electricity from his nuclear plant. But I digress...
In all seriousness, if CO2 is rising and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, wouldn't putting a reflective material over the poles just cause more of a greenhouse effect by having he reflective material more powerfully deflect the suns energy back into the atmosphere? I'm just saying...
Given the satellite images (as linked by OMG any many other articles prove) show the ice caps are growing and not shrinking; me personally, I chalk the "southern winter apocalypse" up to the fact that the north pole has shifted south into Canada and changes to the east coast jet stream.
Its just one idea that I was reading about. There are plenty others that might be more feasible. The sheets of material would be ridiculously expensive.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/30/cl...
johnsonma said:
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-worlds-top-scient...It blows my mind how some people still think global warming is a myth.
At this time there are 26 current models being used to predict the weather. Not a single one has come close to replicating the last 100 years of 'climate change' accurately. The models put into place can account for 'warming' trends but can't account for the cooling pattern in the 70s and 80s.
The models are inaccurate and inconclusive.
Critical thinking requires that one take a side, think it through, and hold steady until proven otherwise. While many can speculate that 'global warming' is man-made, you must also realize the vast majority have switched from the term 'global warmning' to 'climate change' because their models do not accurately, or even remotely, account for the weather changes such as global cooling for roughly 20 years.
Again, the models are inaccurate.
Many people argue that people who do not believe in "man made" global warming/climate change are idiots. The fact is that there is not enough evidence to sway one side or the other. Those who believe it is strictly man made are idiots as science has proven the earth to be on a warming trend for the last 25,000 years. One arguing that it is man made can also be considered an idiot at this time based upon science's current standing. The United States has far more trees present than 200 years ago because man has made an effort to increase trees over removing them.
The accuracy in reading temperature greatly increases from roughly the mid 1980s (computers) to previous years. If you review NASA data, you won't see much of a change from 1900 to 1980, and then a sky rocket in temperature increase. This is strictly due to the increase in technology to accurately report the temperature. Given the last 100 years, we see almost a 1 degree increase in global temperature which I suspect that science can account for a +/- accuracy of 1 degree over a course of 100 years.
I do not argue that man is not creating additional pollutants in the air. I argue that it is not solely man who is responsible for the warming trend. Then again, if you argue that concept against any physicist, they can quickly destroy the concept of global warming as provided by the models currently being used. As the old saying goes, global warming/climate change applies to everything except physics.
At the end of the day it remains an unproven science. Those who deny it are more likely going to be swayed when accurate scientific models are available and dispel non-truths. Until then, it is better to err on the side of a non-believer than to be a believer of an unproven science. Otherwise the world remains flat.
An effective argument ... until your last two sentences riser.
Because global warming ... IF it exists ... has such a profound negative effect (potential extinction of the race) on us then we should be committed to its study (funding/ resources) and the reduction of our individual inputs, and those of our industries (via government carbon strategies) ... for the alternative is ... ignorance and death???
Remaining a non believer is fine ... just be committed to its study and reduction of greenhouse gas outputs ... then your safe.
I have kids ... I tend to take a longer term view on life.
Because global warming ... IF it exists ... has such a profound negative effect (potential extinction of the race) on us then we should be committed to its study (funding/ resources) and the reduction of our individual inputs, and those of our industries (via government carbon strategies) ... for the alternative is ... ignorance and death???
Remaining a non believer is fine ... just be committed to its study and reduction of greenhouse gas outputs ... then your safe.
I have kids ... I tend to take a longer term view on life.
johnsonma
April 9, 2014 8:46:52 AM
Two points:
First you say that the models are inaccurate because they cannot predict the weather. This a fallacy of thought as they do not predict weather accurately because they were not made to do this. They predict the change of climate conditions over years. They are pretty accurate, if you actually look at them and not take someone's word for it.
Second and probably more importantly is the fact that with the sea level changing consistently, as predicted by models, we will soon experience a catastrophic event just from the rising sea level. Adding to this issue is the fact that Greenland is now melting. Greenland was always considered the one stable place for glaciers to remain constant. Now they are melting and could lead to a cascading effect for the sea level. It probably wont happen in our lifetimes but the next generation will most certainly feel the effects.
You say it is better to err on the side of a non-believer, normally i think you are right but in this case we are talking about the future of our planet. We should err on the side of caution and do everything in our power to minimize the impact we have on the planet. If climate change science is wrong then that's fine we still limited our impact on the planet and made it better for future generations. If climate science is right then we have saved millions or billions of lives. When looked at with raw logical thought, the answer is quite clear.
First you say that the models are inaccurate because they cannot predict the weather. This a fallacy of thought as they do not predict weather accurately because they were not made to do this. They predict the change of climate conditions over years. They are pretty accurate, if you actually look at them and not take someone's word for it.
Second and probably more importantly is the fact that with the sea level changing consistently, as predicted by models, we will soon experience a catastrophic event just from the rising sea level. Adding to this issue is the fact that Greenland is now melting. Greenland was always considered the one stable place for glaciers to remain constant. Now they are melting and could lead to a cascading effect for the sea level. It probably wont happen in our lifetimes but the next generation will most certainly feel the effects.
You say it is better to err on the side of a non-believer, normally i think you are right but in this case we are talking about the future of our planet. We should err on the side of caution and do everything in our power to minimize the impact we have on the planet. If climate change science is wrong then that's fine we still limited our impact on the planet and made it better for future generations. If climate science is right then we have saved millions or billions of lives. When looked at with raw logical thought, the answer is quite clear.
musical marv
April 9, 2014 5:46:18 PM
johnsonma said:
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-worlds-top-scient...It blows my mind how some people still think global warming is a myth.
johnsonma said:
Two points:First you say that the models are inaccurate because they cannot predict the weather. This a fallacy of thought as they do not predict weather accurately because they were not made to do this. They predict the change of climate conditions over years. They are pretty accurate, if you actually look at them and not take someone's word for it.
Second and probably more importantly is the fact that with the sea level changing consistently, as predicted by models, we will soon experience a catastrophic event just from the rising sea level. Adding to this issue is the fact that Greenland is now melting. Greenland was always considered the one stable place for glaciers to remain constant. Now they are melting and could lead to a cascading effect for the sea level. It probably wont happen in our lifetimes but the next generation will most certainly feel the effects.
You say it is better to err on the side of a non-believer, normally i think you are right but in this case we are talking about the future of our planet. We should err on the side of caution and do everything in our power to minimize the impact we have on the planet. If climate change science is wrong then that's fine we still limited our impact on the planet and made it better for future generations. If climate science is right then we have saved millions or billions of lives. When looked at with raw logical thought, the answer is quite clear.
I would rather stand my ground on the basis that the science is inaccurate until it is proven accurate. Otherwise I would be taking inaccurate information and making decisions on it. Therefore, I would argue that man is not the sole reason for climate change. I'm not saying we should not do our part to prevent excessive measures, but do so within a reasonable and scaled out approach.
To take an inaccurate science and start making drastic changes is idiotic. While this may appear very selfish, what we do now may benefit many people at the cost of much worse conditions for far more people. The question is something like this: Do we lower our standard of living drastically while not improving anyone else's standard of living in hopes of, at best, maintaining the status quo with or without action? If you look at what is being asked and demanded of people to meet the 'green' needs, it isn't beneficial. I would rather people stop trying to move 'forward' and start thinking about real solutions. This is a business deal. Stop, think, gather support, and implement. Instead, we create panic with misinformation or inaccurate information, hope enough people panic to buy the secret sauce, all the while someone else somewhere is reaping some unknown benefit.
I'll end with this. Simply look at who is getting rich if we jump on the band wagon of climate change is man made. That should be more than enough evidence to realize this is a significant hoax.
johnsonma
May 9, 2014 11:56:02 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/science/earth/climate...
Another huge report on climate change. It has become an issue of believing in facts or believing in ideology. Unfortunately a large percent of Americans would rather believe politicians than scientists.
Another huge report on climate change. It has become an issue of believing in facts or believing in ideology. Unfortunately a large percent of Americans would rather believe politicians than scientists.
I actually looked at the federal government's Web 2.0 disaster of a "paper" that the NYT article linked to as the source. I also looked at the supporting data appendices. No actual research paper I've EVER read looked or sounded like that and I've read thousands and thousands of them. There was fairly little for actual data and there was a lot of extremely definite-sounding commentary strewn around in the entire "paper." There was only one graph that even acknowledged that climate may have existed before the late 1800s and all that showed was CO2 levels and not temperatures. Nearly all of the graphs in the "paper" started either at 1900 or 1960-1970. Could that be because the 1960s-70s were at the bottom of the well-known ~60-year cyclical temperature variation and the 1990s-early 2000s were at the peak, which "proves" short-term warming? There was very, very little talk about confounding factors other than to dismiss them. This "paper" looked everything like a vendor advertisement rather than an actual academic report. If it were in another field such as medicine it would have been laughed at and rejected from publication as absolute garbage instead of pushed as gospel.
wanamingo
May 9, 2014 12:44:40 PM
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-...
More than 1300 peer reviewed papers on climate change. Go to town.
And another site that has both sets. Supporting and denying. http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?peer=1
More than 1000 on that site.
More than 1300 peer reviewed papers on climate change. Go to town.
And another site that has both sets. Supporting and denying. http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?peer=1
More than 1000 on that site.
johnsonma
May 9, 2014 12:47:26 PM
You should look at the climate science supplement under the appendices for better data. This report is more of a grouping of different workshops and studies. For more detailed data you need to look at the individual studies.
Most of the developed world is in agreement that we are affecting the climate. There is much more evidence than just this paper but people refuse to learn about it because some politicians decided that they know better than the people who study it for a living. Not only that but now you have people attacking the entire scientific process because it is the only option left besides the truth.
When did forced ignorance become acceptable in America?
Most of the developed world is in agreement that we are affecting the climate. There is much more evidence than just this paper but people refuse to learn about it because some politicians decided that they know better than the people who study it for a living. Not only that but now you have people attacking the entire scientific process because it is the only option left besides the truth.
When did forced ignorance become acceptable in America?
Global warming isn't very good science due to the nature of what it is and how it has to be studied. The scientific method is that you make a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and most importantly, have others challenge your findings by repeating the experiments. Global warming completely misses one part of the scientific method and has very low-quality studies for another. There are lots of hypotheses such as CO2-mediated warming, that's not an issue. Testing hypotheses using a high-quality study is impossible as there's no way to do a controlled experiment on the entire Earth itself. You're left with unmatched retrospective observational analysis, as in "we see that CO2 has been increasing along with temperature and there appears to be some sort of relation between the two." This kind of analysis is absolutely fraught with confounders both known and unknown and the magnitude of the changes being investigated are very small. In the medical field these types of studies are typically only used for hypothesis generation. You would follow it up with at the very least a matched prospective cohort trial if not a full-on randomized controlled trial or several. That's simply not possible for global warming due to the nature of what it is. The best that can be done is an unmatched prospective observational study, which in this case is to sit around and wait and see if the global warming that was predicted to happen actually did or not. Experiments are also certainly not repeatable either.
So to hear people talk about "settled science" in something with such low-quality (by nature of the issue being studied) study designs is laughable. The opposition to global warming often comes from that findings from low-quality study designs with known and unknown confounders are being used to push something that has huge, known political and economic ramificaitions. The fact that there are a considerable amount of peer-reviewed papers casting doubt on many different things with climate change simply adds more weight to the skeptics' null hypothesis.
So to hear people talk about "settled science" in something with such low-quality (by nature of the issue being studied) study designs is laughable. The opposition to global warming often comes from that findings from low-quality study designs with known and unknown confounders are being used to push something that has huge, known political and economic ramificaitions. The fact that there are a considerable amount of peer-reviewed papers casting doubt on many different things with climate change simply adds more weight to the skeptics' null hypothesis.
johnsonma
May 9, 2014 2:09:55 PM
How hard it is to test the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere? Not very hard. How hard is it to test the temperature of the ocean in many different places? Not very hard. How hard is it to determine conditions present many years ago? Not very hard with ice core samples among other evidence.
Why does the entire earth have to be a controlled experiment when it can be broken up into multiple experiments? Even if you don't believe the process is up to par, certainly you have to consider the empirical evidence to be pointing in a certain direction?
The fact that you just said that all that is behind the CO2 experiments is a perceived relation to temperature shows me that you haven't looked at the studies in depth. I guess its safe to say that you believe in the propaganda that the models are inaccurate?
Reminds me of the people who use to say lead naturally occurred in the environment and didn't harm us at all.
Why does the entire earth have to be a controlled experiment when it can be broken up into multiple experiments? Even if you don't believe the process is up to par, certainly you have to consider the empirical evidence to be pointing in a certain direction?
The fact that you just said that all that is behind the CO2 experiments is a perceived relation to temperature shows me that you haven't looked at the studies in depth. I guess its safe to say that you believe in the propaganda that the models are inaccurate?
Reminds me of the people who use to say lead naturally occurred in the environment and didn't harm us at all.
stillblue
May 10, 2014 4:34:43 AM
Related resources
- error m-o still happening Forum
- SolvedBSOD 4 times today. ran scans got rid of trojans but still happens. Forum
- my computer keeps on rebooting and it cant even display..in short no display happens and still keeps on rebooting Forum
- got 212+ today, temps still rather warm Forum
- my sony kdl-40cx520 the screen turn white but ther is still audio sound. it happen while we are watching evening news. suddenl Forum
- PC - Randomly freezing - have replaced almost every part yet it still happens Forum
- What will happen if I format my 3TB external hard drive as FAT32? Will it still be capable of utilising its full potential Forum
- Monitor keeps cutting out, have replaced many things and still happens Forum
- What happen cpu when its hits 150degrees but still working Forum
- Had some stuff happen to an external HDD. Will it still work? Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other News & Leisure categories
!