|
Tkman117 -> RE: Who Worries about Global Warming? (4/9/2014 1:01:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Phydeaux, no offence meant, but only blithering fruitcakes don't believe in human induced global warming these days. I thought you rightie types saw yourselves as realistic, balanced and down to earth, and stuff. Doesn't it bother you that you take a view on GW that's so far out on the rarified extreme, here? I mean, not believing in human induced global warming is pretty much up there with not believing in light bulbs. It's just not a serious position to take. No offence.
Actually Peon, none taken.
It doesn't bother me in the least. I've looked at a great deal of science on this. And the IPCC propaganda
a). Doesn't match real world temperatures.
b). Doesn't have a coherent theory.
c). Has holes the size of mac trucks on the issues of aerosols, ionizing radiation, leading/trailing indicators and paleontology.
Not to mention, historical warming trends.
Lead reviewers for the IPCC have said - this is crap, and unsupported crap at that.
Do I think global warming will re-occur around 2030? Yes, actually I do.
I *think* we will gain roughly another degree by 2050, however after losing roughly .3 - .5 degrees between 2014 and 2030.
Those numbers are rough conjectures on the part of many actual scientists.
Certainly not the *life uninhabitable* claim of al gore, in 15 years. And, if you look at long term climate records, cold transitions have caused far more loss of species than the warming occuring.
The bottom line is that the IPCC made a temperature projection in 1998. And instead of plus a degree, we are currently around +.12 degrees. IE the projection was demonstrably WRONG - and in my opinion this error will become more obvious and more pronounced over the next 3-5 years.
So, does it bother me? Nah. Contrary to your belief, I'm actually interested in any science that would actually show there is any science there. In other words, if you find a way of using berylium as a proxy for temperature - it interests me. If you study the salinity of ocean salts - interesting.
For a theory to be correct, it has to generally predict the data examined. Conversely, all one must do to prove a theory wrong, is to show that the current theory is wrong in one facet or another - something that has been done in more than a few hundred published papers to date.
It doesn't actually matter how many people scream - "the science is settled". Screaming that loudly only means the science isn't on your side and you're resorting to pounding the table.
It has predicted the data fairly well, you just refuse to read the scientific research that actually shows it. Instead you scour the internet for those few research papers (of which you have yet to reference) that supposedly support your crack pot theories. All you seem to do is link to conservative blogs or websites owned or donated to by the oil industry, nothing concrete. You post argument after argument, all of which have been debunked and soundly put to rest. But no, you refuse to even consider the possibility you're wrong, the death of your ego would likely be the death of yourself, and it's quite sad to be honest. If you even had a lick of intellectual honesty, you would actually do the research. Start from the basics, "why do scientists think global warming is happening" and work your way up from there, because clearly you don't understand the concept of AGW. If you did, you wouldn't be blabbering that there are massive holes in the theories and that the models can't predict anything, when they soundly have.
Use your brain, I know being a conservative has addled its uses, but for the love of god, you're doing yourself more a disfavour than a benefit by spewing this crap.
Another (in a long litany) of unsupported allegations.
Do me a favor. The IPCC has more than 40 "models" of global warming. Why don't you present them. And then, graph the IPCC models (prior to 2012) predicted temperatures vs actual.
And, then, graph the models the IPCC used in 1998.
Do any of the 1998 models correctly predict the temperatures (short answer: no).
Instead of *telling* me the science is good, show me.
Showing you that the models are correct is like describing colour to a blind man. The models are there, the results are there, if you can't see the connections between the two then you choose not to see it, not that they don't exist. The models are out there for you to find yourself, they're more abundant than your denier "models" I can be sure of that. Continue to close your eyes and cover you ears, it doesn't change the way the world works.
|
|
|
|
