quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

oh, and these are helpful ones too:

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked

Global Warming Scientist Accused Of Falsifying Data On

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Climate “Scientists”, Arrogance, And Lies

Climategate2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

UN Falsified Climate Change Data

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

[Edited]

so we look at the abrupt drop at 1300AD, can we blame that on man also?

How about the recent increase in flare activitiy, seems to be a point few take into consideration.

the earth as a built in carbon cycle balancer, more clouds more rain.

You are right of course.

Nobody is saying that we have not had large fluctuations in temperature before or that the Earth doesn't respond to increased CO2 in a complex way.

The argument is about the nature of the recent rise and the cause of it (not withstanding that there have been fluctuations within that). The point is that the recent rise is still there when you factor in flare activity and other causes.

There is no real question that mankind has contributed to global warming. There is a debate to be had about how quickly this will cause a catastrophe for the human race, but not the central truth about man-made climate change. The Earth will be just fine. If we heat our race and much of the flora and fauna out of existence, the Earth over millions of years will heal itself. The question is about human populations and whether we should panic a little or panic a lot.

Peon is right. The Earth is round, the big bang happened and any serious debate about the existence of man-made global warming is over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/22/4-new-papers-link-solar-activity-natural-ocean-cycles-to-climate-and-find-warmer-temps-during-1700s-1800s/#sthash.noIOk83z.w0sV465R.dpbs

4 New Papers Link Solar Activity, Natural Ocean Cycles To Climate – And Find Warmer Temps During 1700s, 1800s - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/22/4-new-papers-link-solar-activity-natural-ocean-cycles-to-climate-and-find-warmer-temps-during-1700s-1800s


The latest papers linking solar activity as well as ocean oscillations to climate changes are listed below. Not only do these papers describe solar activity and ocean oscillations as the dominant mechanisms of climate change, they provide evidence that the modern, post-1950 period does not contain the highest temperatures of the last few hundred years. In fact, these papers each document that temperatures during some periods of the 1700s and/or 1800s were just as warm or warmer than present temperatures.

Here's the fucking deal:

It's getting warmer.

There's a lot of shit that could make it warmer.

Could be cars.....could be cow poop (scientists say that's 80%....methane)....hamburgers are a wonderful thing....me love hamburgers....BUT....

We gotta do better....simple enough!

Done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Again...settled science. The only settled science in the universe.

No. Scientific consensus.

All science is an imperfect attempt to model the Universe. Thus, all scientific theories are - in effect - models of the Universe. More specifically, they are models of aspects of the Universe.

Now, the true test of a model - be it a scientific model or a model of human behaviour - is its ability to predict the future. No model is perfect, but a model whose ability to predict the future is better than another model can be considered to be a more accurate and thus more useful model. In general, people tend to consider this model to be more complete and this determination is achieved through scientific consensus. Through replication of results, refinement of ideas and ongoing experiments to validate the model within the current capabilities of the scientific community.

Climate scientists have a broad understanding of the influences upon the mean temperatures of the planet. They have a model of how global warming is influenced by human industrial activity.

This model is not perfect. It is fundamentally imperfect - like all science - however it is SUPERIOR TO HAVING NO MODEL AT ALL.

The loony side of the climate debate is a bunch of conspiracy theorists and industrialists who have no counter-model but just try and pick holes in the prevailing scientific model. The conspiracy theorists do it because they're fucked in the head and the industrialists do it because they care more about their personal wealth than they do the livability of the planet.

To be taken seriously, climate science deniers would have to present a counter-model which can be tested. They would have to write up experiments whose results could be replicated - in other words, they would have to do science.

They don't do science, because climate science denial is politics, not science. It has zero credibility and anyone who actually understood science would know that. Then again, I guess you're voting for Trump. After all, as he said "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

That's pretty much exactly the standard of logic used by climate science deniers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Again...settled science. The only settled science in the universe.

No. Scientific consensus.

All science is an imperfect attempt to model the Universe. Thus, all scientific theories are - in effect - models of the Universe. More specifically, they are models of aspects of the Universe.

Now, the true test of a model - be it a scientific model or a model of human behaviour - is its ability to predict the future. No model is perfect, but a model whose ability to predict the future is better than another model can be considered to be a more accurate and thus more useful model. In general, people tend to consider this model to be more complete and this determination is achieved through scientific consensus. Through replication of results, refinement of ideas and ongoing experiments to validate the model within the current capabilities of the scientific community.

Climate scientists have a broad understanding of the influences upon the mean temperatures of the planet. They have a model of how global warming is influenced by human industrial activity.

This model is not perfect. It is fundamentally imperfect - like all science - however it is SUPERIOR TO HAVING NO MODEL AT ALL.

The loony side of the climate debate is a bunch of conspiracy theorists and industrialists who have no counter-model but just try and pick holes in the prevailing scientific model. The conspiracy theorists do it because they're fucked in the head and the industrialists do it because they care more about their personal wealth than they do the livability of the planet.

To be taken seriously, climate science deniers would have to present a counter-model which can be tested. They would have to write up experiments whose results could be replicated - in other words, they would have to do science.

They don't do science, because climate science denial is politics, not science. It has zero credibility and anyone who actually understood science would know that. Then again, I guess you're voting for Trump. After all, as he said "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

That's pretty much exactly the standard of logic used by climate science deniers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Again...settled science. The only settled science in the universe.

No. Scientific consensus.

[Edited]

Absolutely.

The problem is that some people don't understand the scientific process and the relationship between theory, hypothesis, fact and consensus.

The challenge, as you rightly point out, is for those who do not agree with the global warming consensus to develop an alternative hypothesis, which matches the historical and experimental data we do have, and is backed up by a credible model.

As long as people can't handle the concept of uncertainty or confidence intervals, they will continue to misinterpret the fact that our understanding in many areas is incomplete as indicating that current understanding is "wrong" and any old alternative pipe-dream will do.

Our incomplete understanding of the behaviour of electrons hasn't prevented us from using the scientific "facts" we do know to achieve decades of successful electronics and chemistry, which have transformed our lives, using models that we know are only approximations of reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But, in science, you don't make your own model to disprove another scientists model.

Uh, theory of relativity. Newtons gravity laws, and so on. you make your own model.
Einstein disproved Newton, at the edges, obsoleting the theory.

Emission theory of vision, disproven.


More often than not, theories are made obsolete by more accurate understanding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

And yet, now the science is showing CO2 has a much smaller effect and only now are the sun and oceans being considered. How arrogant to assume it's just the same as a round earth...which isn't really round.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

When was it getting warmer? Not for a couple of decades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

First of all, while getting a graduate degree in science I did a lot of calculating electrons so I'm wondering why your being all scientificy and not understanding science all at the same time. For instance when you design transistors you actually bleed electrons through points at specific rates, and of course the rates change based on materials used. That stuff is calculated and predicted all of the time.

Second, over the last couple of decades we've very much discovered that our climate models do not approximate reality at all. You'll have to deal with those ideas in order to actually make a scientificy point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Oh, and BTW, nice try at trying to sound as if you know what your talking about.

quote:

I'm sure it fooled the politically kool aid fed crowd. But, in science, you don't make your own model to disprove another scientists model. You just show the results can't be replicated. Which, the actual climate is doing to all of the proposed models.

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
The internet is not always your friend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
The internet is not always your friend.

right, all those links I posted of scientists and journalists studying, reporting on climate science & refuting the idea of "consensus" are what, a collection of people who have been themselves duped and just haven't gotten the news yet? or that I cannot tell legitimate content from the fallacious? or everyone at my citations are all clearly mistaken despite their expertise and credentials?