|
That's exactly the point. This isn't about science. It's about control and it's about profit. It's about the billions of dollars that are poured into this "science" and how anyone who challenges this cash cow must be destroyed not rebutted.
You guys say it's a snap to predict climate changes, apparently because we can predict climate (well duh, it's gonna snow in the winter! let's all support the carbon tax derp-a-derp!!!!).
In the 1990s the IPCC's first assessment report predicted .75 increase in global air temperature between 1990 and 2015. In reality, the average rate of increase is below the lowest trend predicted by the IPCC.
Contrast the climate model prediction of ocean temperature with the data from Argo. The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it, not warming quickly like climate models project.
So if it's so easy to predict climate... then why can't climate scientists... you know... actually predict what's going on? Face it your models are bunk.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 24 2013 03:45 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Climate scientists have outright fabricated evidence and moved to suppress data which doesn't work for their theories.
Do you actually have anything to back that up or are you just throwing out baseless accusations?
|
On January 23 2013 02:23 Lightspeaker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 21:49 KAB00000000M wrote:On January 22 2013 14:00 neggro wrote:
Is there a definite proof somewhere that there is really climate change? Even the scientists are not unanimous about it. This is exactly what I see too. So much "up and down" about this stuff. It is funny how scientists who graduated studying the same stuff can come up with so different conclusions. Some times it makes me think that there are other factors involved. (eg. money for publishing etc.) Although. I really hated Al Gore's presentation. That was completely false. It isn't. It really isn't. Its not unusual or strange at all, its a feature of science coupled with a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works in the general population. I'm a PhD researcher in biosciences, I know scientists, I AM a scientist. A good scientist seeks to question the conclusions they draw from that data until they run out of ways to attack it. Science works by constantly challenging assumptions and conclusions. And adapting to new data and new ideas. And by being critical of all work done but accepting the conclusion as the best explanation if there is no convincing way to dispute that conclusion. Science isn't a "belief", its a process or a tool which you use to assess observations. So of course you're going to get scientists coming up with different conclusions. I have disagreements and different ideas from my colleagues and supervisors all the time. Its all part of how science works. The problem is that you and others in the general public, and the media especially, don't deal well with how scientists tend to provide conclusions. That isn't meant to be a criticism by the way, you just haven't had the same kind of training or developed a scientific mindset. Scientific conclusions tend to be within a certain margin of error and full of qualifications (i.e. "if this then that"). This doesn't make for very good headlines and most non-scientists can't get their head around it anyway. I've actually been to lectures on communicating science to the general public, thats how big a problem it is. In short, which of the following do you thinks makes a better headline (totally made up scientific "fact" for demonstration purposes): "Eating more than 40g of carrots per day found to cause 15% increased risk of developing a specific form of skin cancer in the over 50 age group of caucasian males at a 95% confidence interval" or "CARROTS CAUSE CANCER" And thats the problem with scientists communicating with the general public.
Well, when I see this post, I can't help but post this pic 
![[image loading]](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif)
|
Yes, , you're right, nobody can predict, it's troubling, what should we do???
I know!!!
WE SHOULD STOP POURING MORE DESTABILIZING INPUT INTO THE SYSTEM AS FAST AS OUR STUPID LITTLE PRIMATE ASSES CAN DO IT!
|
What's the possible harm in agreeing with the "scientific establishment"? If there could be a consensus that would lead to world-wide reduced use of fossil fuels, what would be bad about that? If we save fossil fuel now, it does not disappear.
That's true, but people have needs right now. Especially the billion + living in abject poverty. We need to transform natural resources to better serve the needs of living people. Personally I am against conservation. It doesn't make sense. Historically standards of living increase (the dark ages excepting!), so why should we sacrifice now so that a future society, which will presumably be better off than we are presenting, can prosper? And if we are to take conservation seriously, then should we not also in the future also conserve? Thus the resources can never be used! That to mean would be the real waste of a resource, for it to exist untapped when it could be better put serving the needs of living people.
|
Have you ever studied anything about how an ecosystem functions?
edit: and there's already enough wealth to end poverty. the scarcity is artificial.
|
|
|
Stop reading the news. It's poison. Stop reading anything published on the internet and start reading books. I won't even click on your link.
|
On January 24 2013 04:00 sam!zdat wrote:
Have you ever studied anything about how an ecosystem functions?
edit: and there's already enough wealth to end poverty. the scarcity is artificial.
The problem is a lack of economic freedom. I will refer you to Hazlitt's 'Conquest of Poverty' but again let's keep this thread about climate change, please.
|
Well, you're already doomed then, you're reading "that kind" of political economy.
|
The reality is, the greenhouse effect is real. But government models have this bogus 'amplification' model. Basically the theory goes you get a 1.1 degree increase in temperature for each doubling of CO2. Then there is an amplication of 3x as evaporation leads to more water vapor, which traps more heat, it's a cycle. This is the government theory.
What skeptics say is that feedback from increased CO2 actually decreases the direct effect of extra CO2. The main feedbacks are water vapor, evaporation and clouds. Water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor means extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back into outerspace, thereby reducing overall warming.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
Because the Telegraph is such a highly regarded scientific resource. A journalist can churn out whatever nonsense they want especially if they don't understand the science. Also the whole climategate "scandal" was a load of nonsense who don't understand how scientific research is published.
|
You guys have the art of apologetix down to a real science!
|
Using newspaper articles, especially editorial ones, does not make your argument more valid. News and editorials are always influenced by the bias of writers, and they are not peer reviewed for accuracy and correction.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 24 2013 04:07 TerribleNoobling wrote:
You guys have the art of apologetix down to a real science!
Its called looking at the evidence. You should try it sometime.
|
Well the union of concerned scientists for environmental solutions should definitely be an impartial source on this one.
|
On January 24 2013 04:05 TerribleNoobling wrote:
The reality is, the greenhouse effect is real. But government models have this bogus 'amplification' model. Basically the theory goes you get a 1.1 degree increase in temperature for each doubling of CO2. Then there is an amplication of 3x as evaporation leads to more water vapor, which traps more heat, it's a cycle. This is the government theory.
What skeptics say is that feedback from increased CO2 actually decreases the direct effect of extra CO2. The main feedbacks are water vapor, evaporation and clouds. Water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor means extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back into outerspace, thereby reducing overall warming.
Pick and choose. This guy is actually doing his footwork, contrary to Bookers:
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
|
Zurich15365 Posts
On January 24 2013 04:10 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Well the union of concerned scientists for environmental solutions should definitely be an impartial source on this one.
You are free to check out the dozen of sources which link to investigations to the "scandal" that universally cleared the accused scientists of everything.
Of course, you are not going to do that. I am posting this only for others on this forum to counter you spreading fabricated misinformation and slander.
|
On January 24 2013 04:05 TerribleNoobling wrote:
What skeptics say is that feedback from increased CO2 actually decreases the direct effect of extra CO2. The main feedbacks are water vapor, evaporation and clouds. Water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor means extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back into outerspace, thereby reducing overall warming.
That's a nice story! Thank god you've resolved the complexities of climate science! Once upon a time the end.
I like how you talk about people with their clinging to old traditions when you bring up the worst of reactionary political economy and reduce every problem in the whole world to "needz moar economic freedomz." The problem is you're not just some tool on the internet, you're actually an entire demographically significant worldview! this is why I turn to drugs to deal with my problems 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
