Why Some Meteorologists Still Deny Global Warming
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/12/why-some-meteorologists-still-deny-climate-science
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%':
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Norm48327 Several years back, the major threat was considered to be Methane gas from the digestive tracts of cattle herds. This year, it's CO2. What will be the next line the alarmists (read agenda driven liberals) ask us to believe?
Several years back, the major threat was considered to be Methane gas from the digestive tracts of cattle herds. This year, it's CO2. What will be the next line the alarmists (read agenda driven liberals) ask us to believe?
JT22CWIn Galileo's time, it was the government that pushed Aristotle's claim that the sun orbited the earth—and Galileo paid a heavy price for "denying" the government dogma that was taken to be "empirical science" at that time.
Sorry but you betray your "anti-government" bias. Of course it was the Catholic Church, not a secular government that opposed Galileo and Copernicus.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
A more accurate defintion as related to science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, repeatedly confirmed through observation and/or experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity. Examples of theories:
DwightBranch I keep repeating myself, but I don't think many of you are familiar with the scientific method, or with scientific proof, or what a theory means (it means proven).
I keep repeating myself, but I don't think many of you are familiar with the scientific method, or with scientific proof, or what a theory means (it means proven).
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Norm
JT22CWTake note that it is governments pushing the "climate change" fraud, with only the goal of pushing "carbon trading", increasing regulations, and instituting Tobin taxes.
I will assume you refer to a "Pigovian Tax"? A Tobin tax is on spot conversions of currencies.
JT22CWAny "climate model" that excludes water vapor from its calculations is a pure fraud. Water vapor is the chief component of the planet's atmosphere that influences its ambient temperature; remove that and any calculations will be useless. That is the pure scientific viewpoint.
Again you are speaking from a lack of knowledge which even a perfunctory Google search would have revealed.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
"We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century. "This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere," said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."
Settled.
Science.
Wow, I thought the full moon (on FTT) was last night? I keep repeating myself, but I don't think many of you are familiar with the scientific method, or with scientific proof, or what a theory means (it means proven). Nor even what a reputable scientist is (i.e., peer reviewed, with a minimum of a PhD in his field). I am not a physical scientist either, but my field still requires the same peer reviewed proof as the physical sciences before arguments can be taken seriously. I have yet to see a peer reviewed scientific paper posted by any AGW deniers here, just a lot of links to conspiracy websites. Anthropocentric Global Warming is accepted by 97% of accredited, peer-reviewed scientists (almost every study shows this 97%, here are references to a study by nine scientists in four countries, here is one at the National Academy of Sciences, I have seen another from the University of Illinois referenced). Oberlin College geologist Dr. James L. Powell reviewed 13,950 papers published between January, 1991 and early November, 2012, and found that only 24 of them dissented. That's .17 percent., or 1 out of every 581. Powell further makes the point that those 24 were, on average, the least cited of the papers, saying, "Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science." Your odds of knowing someone who believes aliens walk among us disguised as humans are twenty times greater than finding a climate skeptic in a group of climate scientists.
Much of what has been posted today ranges from little more than ad hominum remarks (i.e. argument against the person, "you're only saying that becasue..." which is considered illegitimate in scientific discourse) to wild conspiracy theories. A lot of it is a search for an excuse, often by a shifting of the question, from the rapid global warming predicted to take place due to added carbon dioxide percentages, to all shifts in temperature at all times.
These aren't explanations, these are excuses. We don't allow murderers to excuse their behavior by saying "well, he would have died eventually anyway", because that issue, death from old age, isn't the issue at hand, the issue at hand is why he died today, in that manner, and likewise the issue at hand is the rapid global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels, here , now, not in the entire history of the earth, becasue this AGW is what we are facing now. Like the murderer's "he would have died anyway", the argument "temperature changes on its own periodically" is a classic dodge, the substitution of the question of a general issue (all death and all global warming) for a specific one (the murder victim's death and Anthropocentric Global Warming in the next few years). ANd as with a competent judge, the scientific community isn't buying it.
Benjamin Franklin once said that "he who is incapable of conversion is unworthy of conversation", and I see that applies to many of you, becasue you cannot view the issue objectively but rather through the lens of political beliefs, and, I would speculate, resentment (this is an ad hominum remark, but is acceptable becasue I am not putting it forward as a refutation of evidence, I have cited evidence throughout this thread). But just realize that you are defending scientific quackery. There is still a large percentage of AGW deniers in this country, but most of them are old (73% of those under 35 endorse AGW, compared to about 60% for the population as a whole in the US, about the same as those who believe in the theory of evolution, sadly for science in the USA). So, I see the issue becoming more important in coming years, and the 30% reduction over 2005 levels is just a start.
schlimm Sorry to tell you, but empirical science trumps "common sense" every time. There are many beliefs folks have which they call common sense because they don't understand the science. Common sense once told us that the earth was the center of the universe. Any sensible person could see that the sun revolved around us. Science discovered that was not the case, but many folks continued to believe what was a fiction.
Sorry to tell you, but empirical science trumps "common sense" every time. There are many beliefs folks have which they call common sense because they don't understand the science. Common sense once told us that the earth was the center of the universe. Any sensible person could see that the sun revolved around us. Science discovered that was not the case, but many folks continued to believe what was a fiction.
I agree. Empirical science (like analysis of the actual temperature trend and the carbon dioxide levels found in deep ice bores) trumps flawed computer models and data manipulation by 'climate experts' with agendas.
Common sense says that facts speak for themselves. If we become aware that facts don't support our pet theories, then honest scientists revise the theories to reflect the facts. Others with agendas will either attempt to suppress the new information or discredit the people who brought it to the attention of the scientific community.
As a former working statistician I'm very aware of the various methods used by people who want to distort statistics to support an agenda. The usual method is to provide flawed, incomplete or wilfully inaccurate data. This whole, 'Disaster will happen if we don't act NOW,' scenario has a delicate aroma of rotting fish.
Somehow I suspect that this whole kerfuffle will blow away when some mad scientist teams up with a sane engineer to develop a working mass converter. Then one box of used kitty litter will power your humble abode for a year, with enough (kitty litter) left over to allow you to drive your electric car thirty thousand miles - all without producing a microgram of exhaust of any kind. I'm not holding my breath, but I won't bet it isn't going to happen.
In the meantime, the railroads will take up a larger percentage of inter-city freight traffic as private car owners start electing pols who will move the rubber-wheel long distance business onto steel wheels.
Chuck (former USAF maintenance analyst and occasional science fiction author)
Perfessor - fraud? Say it ain't so. Pure fraud at that.
schlimmJT22CWTake note that it is governments pushing the "climate change" fraud, with only the goal of pushing "carbon trading", increasing regulations, and instituting Tobin taxes. Equating empirical science with government dogma is beyond specious. The whole "climate change" debacle is based on fraudulent science that uses "computer models" as prophets of events taking place in an atmosphere that does not exist on Earth.Yes,it it all a giant conspiracy!! Fits in well with the deniers of 9-11
JT22CWTake note that it is governments pushing the "climate change" fraud, with only the goal of pushing "carbon trading", increasing regulations, and instituting Tobin taxes. Equating empirical science with government dogma is beyond specious. The whole "climate change" debacle is based on fraudulent science that uses "computer models" as prophets of events taking place in an atmosphere that does not exist on Earth.
Any "climate model" that excludes water vapor from its calculations is a pure fraud. Water vapor is the chief component of the planet's atmosphere that influences its ambient temperature; remove that and any calculations will be useless. That is the pure scientific viewpoint.
Yes,it it all a giant conspiracy!! Fits in well with the deniers of 9-11.
So, today I have learned that:
1. The hockey stick is broken....Mike Mann seems to have left out certain data in order for the stick to fit his theory.
2. The "97%ers claim is stretched to fit the hockey stick.
3. Energy is a big business.
4. Environmentalism is a big business.
Cant wait til tomorrow to learn a little more.
Ed
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2013/02/12/global-warming-many-reputable-scientists-say-no/
schlimmSorry to tell you, but empirical science trumps "common sense" every time. There are many beliefs folks have which they call common sense because they don't understand the science. Common sense once told us that the earth was the center of the universe. Any sensible person could see that the sun revolved around us. Science discovered that was not the case, but many folks continued to believe what was a fiction
I once heard a scientist chronologically place the beginning of time.
Well, common sense says all you do is look at the heavens, and know there has to be more than just our world out there.
On the other hand, theories about Global Warming are just that. A bunch of fearmongering and humbug.
"The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/
Is their consensus that the Perfessor will be able to understand that common sense?
"Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims":
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
schlimmAll the denial comments are chapter and verse from the Heartand Institute's campaign of disinformation. Much of their funding comes from the oil industry. BTW, one of their chief organizers, Fred Singer, was the leader of the Heartland Institute's tobacco industry-sponsored campaign to try to discredit the science on the lethality of tobacco smoking. But some folks choose to believe this stuff, rather than the overwhelming consensus of climatological scientists
Science is not about consensus. It is about observation and data-gathering; anything beyond that is politics, especially when the government is involved. It most certainly is not about political conspiracy theories to which the sole end is the increase of government bureaucracy (the sole response to "climate change" so-called is limitations on industrial activity and increase in taxes and regulations).
"World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html
All the denial comments are chapter and verse from the Heartand Institute's campaign of disinformation. Much of their funding comes from the oil industry. BTW, one of their chief organizers, Fred Singer, was the leader of the Heartland Institute's tobacco industry-sponsored campaign to try to discredit the science on the lethality of tobacco smoking. But some folks choose to believe this stuff, rather than the overwhelming consensus of climatological scientists.
Randy StahlIt's all actual science. Who's to say its not all propaganda. Its not hard to twist science to serve any purpose you want. Remember that cigarette smoking is healthy according to some studies ? All science, all facts. Just not the right conclusions.
Who's to say its not all propaganda. Its not hard to twist science to serve any purpose you want. Remember that cigarette smoking is healthy according to some studies ? All science, all facts. Just not the right conclusions.
All of the IPCC's "computer models" omit the effect of water vapor. That is clearly not science when one bases one's agenda on an atmosphere that does not exist on planet Earth.
You sure it ain't global cooling?
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
The False Alert of Global Warming:
http://spectator.org/articles/55208/false-alert-global-warming
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.