Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
So you say. But I don't understand how one can look at the temperature profile of the IPCC computer climate models and say.. they match. I don't agree how you can ignore Svennie's research in Nature, or the CERN research. Or Nasa's.
I don't understand either, on account of my not being a climatologist. Just as you insist that others rely on the expertise of people that actually know what they're talking about, I do hope you'll forgive me if I take the word of the majority of experts over yours?
You are welcome to take the word of a travelling salesmen if you like. Or the village idiot. But to call it science it has to explain the phenomenon described.
And if you are so lazy or unqualified that you can't understand the research, then what are you doing opining?
quote:
quote:
I do not see how you can possibly say that a rise of 1.2 degrees over a decade or two is catastrophic global warming.
Especially when that same rate of increase has occurred literally millions of times in the past.
Hell, a piddling little rise of 1.2 degrees seems tiny to me too! But I'm not a climatologist.
Now, if you're claiming to have some real expertise in this domain, why don't you publish a paper?
Because there are more than adequate papers exposing this as BS already. Try reading some.
quote:
quote:
You say that energy researchers would seek to twist facts - and yet dont' see how climatologists - whose research is funded by govts might also seek to distort the facts?
Ah, here I seem to have an advantage over you, since I actually know how research is funded - On account of my having actually obtained research grants in the past.
Such a (undeserved) superiority complex.
quote:
Research is funded in many ways. Many organisations and entities provide funding for research. In many cases government funding is allocated by panels of academics - In stark contrast, I would point out, to the way in which many commercial organisations allocate funding.
This whole "foreign governments funding research with an agenda to support climate change theory" is a complete nonsense.
Nor is that the argument I advanced.
quote:
Every government in the world has a huge vested interest in climate change not being an issue. The cost of addressing climate change is going to be enormous for many governments.
The cost of AGCC global warming is going to be ZERO as it is not occuring.
The costs of overpopulation; the costs of dealing with normal climate variation, may well be huge.
It is a complete waste of money to spend trillions of dollars on man-made CO2 emissions when that policy will have zero effect on the increase in global temperatures [SINCE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE IS MINIMAL & IRRELEVENT and not caused by CO2].
Or perhaps you should read the princeton paper which said that even if global warming were occuring as the IPCC described the best course of action would be to do NOTHING for 50 years.
quote:
If your claim is that this really is an international conspiracy to attack the US economy, could you explain why the negative economic effects should be restricted to the USA?
Ridiculous straw man.
A). The fact that nations act in their own interests (and in competition with american interests) is self evident and needs no explanation. Or rather I'm not willing to provide one if its not self evident to you. Go read Kissingers work on Real Politik.
B). Why the economic effects would be constrained to the US?
Clearly, they're not. The EU is suffering tremendously from the idiotic drinking of the koolaid. Go read what has happened in Spain green-energy sector. Go read how 40% of denmarks windpower gets dumped. Go read how germany's renewable energy market is causing poverty. And exporting jobs to china.
Read a paper or two man.
It rather seems to me that the opposite is likely to be true in the long term - The US has enormous capability in technology, R&D, and sheer pig-headed persistence that if I had to bet on who out of the US or Europe would be able to come out of climate change in better shape, I'd bet on the USA every flipping time.
quote:
You can't see how the cabal of climate scientists could seek to prevent funding of opposing research, and stifle results when evidence of same has already been published.
quote:
their behaviour is motivated by a selfish desire not to have to compete with outsiders for research money,
Bingo.
quote:
You can't see how climatologists have falsified data (East Anglia & NASA, twice).
quote:
If you actually care about the truth, you'd do a little research into these two claims. You'd also have to acknowledge that when disputes and issues arise the scientific community is pretty rigorous in its examination of claims of misconduct - Because it's not in their interests to have the process of science marred.
I have read more than a thousand pages on this.
I downloaded the original data, back in the 80's and 90's.
I saw the change between the original satellite data and the modified data.
I saw both the changes in the suftace temperature data points - and the modified data.
I've see the requests for East Anglia's data. I've seen the emails where they admit they will destroy the data rather than release them.
I've seen where they admit to applying a "correction factor" to the data points - and then destroying the original data points.
There are hundreds of scientists who have looked at this and said this is fraud.
quote:
quote:
For global warming to be wrong you only need a statistially significant number of data points to disagree - and there are thousands of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Or go look at the NGPCC report which has a more significant list.
I am sure you're right, but again - I have to say that, I'm not convinced that you're qualified to draw these conclusions, that is why we have Scientists, people that devote their lives to discovering the truth.
Yeah? Do you put Scientists on a pedestal that they may properly be worshipped? Scientists don't devote their lives to discovering the truth. They are researchers that are paid to pose interesting questions and perhaps find answers to them. It is no more a noble calling than medicine, field work, or politics.
But one thing I am sure of. I am sure that you are not qualified to opine on any of this, if you haven't bothered to do even the slightest bit of research on points of view outside your narrow mindset.
Thirty years ago, I was interested that ground station temperature points were coming in higher. I wondered if this could be because of the massive amounts of heat humans were producing. Or perhaps it was carbon dioxide caused. So like I said - I looked at the ground station data - both original and revised. I looked at the methodology for correction factors.
There is a blatant mistake in the data. Where DOUBLE the correction factor was applied to every single ground station. Mistake or deliberate I don't know.
I then started looked at data sets. Out of the thousands of ground temperature stations, 350 sites in the USSR were dropped, mostly from Siberia etc. Interesting question: Since the corrections were applied due to things like nearby construction, direct sunlight etc - why would sites in remote parts of the USSR be dropped.
Turns out, if you bother to get the data as I did, that almost the entire temperature variation in the three years that I studied is attributed to the change in the data set.
Ie., if you sample warmer weather stations - you get a higher average temperature.
I did the same for satellite data, many years later. By this time I recognized that there were political forces behind the "global warming" hoax. So after I've dug into this twice - and spent hundreds of man hours from sheer curiousity, I revisit the field periodically. When climate gate broke - I read every single released post and email.
And I really hoped that some light would be shed. Some was, but the vast majority of people would rather just trust "Scientists".
As a side note - I've followed "svennies" research since the 1990's. I've followed the CERN project since that fellow originally proposed it.
Not from a desire to disprove global warming - that ship has long sailed. But rather because I thought it was rather breathtaking groundbreaking research that explained something I was curious about.
So if devoting your life to discovering the truth, sonny, is what qualifies one in this field, I think I've done my time.
< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 12/6/2013 9:32:52 AM >
|
RE: 0 + 0 - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread