cancel2 2022
Canceled
Last edited:
APP - Climate data so bad MET office says redo it
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that there is uncertainty in science. That's the nature of the beast, man.
As for the credibility comment, well I agree that no one credible is denying warming. And no one credible is babbling about a global scientific conspiracy either. Yet, surely you recall that for the entire 1990s this same cabal of "skeptics" were the ones that hollered that "there was no warming trend". That the warming trend was the invention of lying, liberal scientists who were misinterpreting their data.
It's only been in recent year that these very same "skeptics' have had to move their goal posts, and flip flop to say that there is warming but that it isn't man made.
They were wrong, horribly wrong in the 1990s. When someone is that wrong, I'm usually not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt when they holler "But, THIS time I'll be right!"
Thousands of the world's top climate scientists who actually do their own peer reviewed research in this area have given us an informed conclusion that there is a high probablliity that the recent warming trends are being exacerbated by human activities.
The skeptics, almost universally, are all either non-scientists, or they don't do any of their own peer reviewed lab or field research in climate science. They don't collect and present their own peer-reviewed data sets. All they do publish articles on blogs, issue statements to the press, or write a non-peer reviewed article for some rightwing think tank. Cranks yelling from the back bench and from the peanut gallery, in essence.
In other words, I disagree with your assertion that the effects of global warming "are very much in contention". They're not. Unless you consider rightwing think tanks, and statements to a blog or a newspaper from some dude to be legitimate science. It's not. The skeptics aren't providing their own legitimate peer reviewed science. They're just complaining, and writing articles for blogs and think tanks. That isn't science, bro.
The fact that there is uncertainty is not a reason to do nothing. Although, scientists have concluded with a relatively high degree of confidence that human activities are significantly contributing to climate change, it's never going to be proven with absolute, bullet proof certainty. But, that's just the nature of science. The question, from a policy perspective, is one of risk management. Risk management is what policy is always about. Indeed, in your every day life, managing risk is done on a daily basis even absent 100%, guaranteed bullet proof certainty of facts. That's just life.
The question is, how high is the probability that humans are influencing the climate (pretty high, according to the world's top climate scientists), and even without ever knowing fully 100% the nature of that risk, how should we manage the risk, or should we even worry about managing the risk.
Changing the climate on a global basis is a pretty huge risk. Even if we aren't fully 120% certain of the exact nature of the risk. Ronald Reagan fucking moved like a bolt of lightening and imposed a hardcore and severe complete worldwide ban on CFCs on the basis of less information, than we have now on greenhouse gases. And you know what? The same denialists who said in the 1990s that there was no warming were the same denialists who said that CFCs and the Ozone hole were all liberal lies, as well.
Its the same shit, different day, man.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Well done. Bravo now has to scramble like crazy to find a denier site that can offer some type of plausible denial of what you post here. I'm curious to see who is calling this brown cloud "seasonal" dust.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Well, at least we know the ozone holes over Antarctica are seasonal...
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The science is by no means settled and my main bone of contention is that politicians are using what there is to impose swingeing green taxes and to justify carbon credits. Is it any wonder that Goldman Sachs and all the other leeches were at Copenhagen waiting for their next attempt to screw the world? I have been following the CLOUD experiment with great interest as it provides an alternative explanation for global warming.
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2009/12/cerns-cloud-experiment.html
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
I just wrote that the science isn't 100% settled. It never will be.
400 years after Isacc Newton, we are still debating the exact nature and cause of gravity. Nothing is ever known with 100% certainty in science. The best we can do is assign a probability to scientific estimates. The world climate science community has proffered it's judgement that the probability that humans are significantly affecting the climate is very high. That is beyond dispute. To suggest that it's very much in contention, is just plain wrong.
As for cap and trade, carbon taxes, that's fine if you have a problem with it. That's not science. That's policy. And I happen to agree that the wall street robber barons and global financiers are desperate to create schemes that will keep CO2 from being regulated like any other known or probable pollutant of concern.
As for CLOUD offering an "alternative explanation" (your word) to climate change, I watched your entire video. And it said nothing of the sort. No scientifically defensible theory was proffered. If you go to his conclusion slide, the dude even says himself, that his experiment may show that cosmic radiation has a negligible effect on clouds, or that it may show that cosmic rays are an important contributor to climate change. In short, the dude himself says he doesn't know. He's offering a hypothesis. An educated guess. There's no body of work on cosmic radiation that has been widely accepted by the scientific community as a significant forcing on climate change.
Now, this dude's experiment may shed some interesting light on cloud formation. But, as far as being a major contributor to climate change, he says himself he has no idea. Its just a hypothesis. It doesn't rise to the level of climate change being "very much in contention", as I believe you put it.
No doubt, there's a few physicists on the planet who've spent the last two decades trying to find a link between sun spots and cosmic radiation to explain climate change. Most of it has been debunked. Certainly, experiments devoted to understanding cloud cover are important, and there are uncertainties worthy developing experimental data to mitigate. But, nothing legitimate and supportable has ever been offered to suggest that climate change can be explained by cosmic rays. Nothing but hypothesis and speculations. The dude on your own video said that, in his conclusions. We can only make policy decisions on what we know, or what has been widely accepted as expert, informed analysis and conclusions. Not on hypothesis, and speculations.
In fact, most scientists have pretty much debunked the alleged correlations between cosmic radiation, clouds, and climate.
Environ. Res. Lett. 3 (2008) 024001
Sloan and Wolfendale
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) Not sure why anyone is surprised that there is 'uncertainty in science'... despite the fact that these global warming fear mongers have been shouting 'consensus' and 'the debate is over'? So no surprise??? Fucking hilarious.
2) People in the 1990s who questioned global warming were questioning 'man' causing it. While I imagine there were certainly fringe people who said there was no warming, the SCIENTISTS were questioning the use of the data by the fear mongers. Turns out, they were correct to do so.
3) The group moving the goal posts... are the global warming fear mongers... you know, the ones who NOW insist upon calling it 'climate change'... they do this because by calling it climate change they can point to ANY change and say 'see... we told you so'..... this was done because as they now admit, there has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING FOR THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS. (a point I brought up to you fear mongers a couple years ago, when idiots like you had a hard time understanding that a trend line is linear).
4) Those scientists who 'did their own studies'.... tell us... WHOSE data did they use? Go on... tell us... you know the answer... they were using the data from the CRU, NOAA and Goddard.... they ALL USED THE SAME MAJOR DATA SOURCES. IF THE SOURCES WERE TAINTED (or sloppy as Jones stated) then the subsequent studies are called into question.
5) Peer review is brought into question given the attempts by the fear mongers to suppress opposing views. You are also wrong, there are thousands of scientists who are critical of the theory that man is the primary cause of the most recent warming trend. But I know... you will continue to point to the government agencies who have a vested interest in their own fear mongering and pretend this somehow legitimizes their 'studies'.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Jasper Kirkby, or the dude as you term him, is not giving much away because he got burnt before by the powers that be back in the late 90s. I can assure you that CERN would not have put the money up for this research if it was based on a few cranks and a dodgy hypothesis. The full results should be coming forth this year so you won't have long to wait. I can see that you are not that familiar with this research or that of Henrik Svenmark and Nir Shaviv, so I suggest that you bone up on their work first before forming an opinion, that is how a true scientist operates. At the same time show me that your opinions are formed from sound deductive thinking rather than an emotive something must be done agenda.
The reason why I say the science is very much in contention is because there is very little in the way of evidence apart from Mann's infamous hockey stick and a few trees in the Kamchatka Peninsula.. Yet politicians are potentially willing to throw countless billions away on something that is based on tenuous evidence.
Last edited:
aint it a hoot? Cypress, mr. consensus, telling us he doesn't know where anyone got the idea the science was settled. Laugh out fucking loud funny
If the science is uncertain, as cypress now maintains his position has been all along (yeah, right, buddy), how is it we can spend billions on measures based on the science, and why the fuck do you call sceptics deniers?