AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

@Olivier5,

You have not contributed to the science behind this in the least. Methinks you know not enough.

@Briancrc,

You refuse to read my ref. I include it again:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.dnr1g8EB.dpuf

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Where did you get the idea that there weren't any issues with computers that didn't have the bug fixed?

Did a chicken just run across the keyboard? Why should we trust your pals when the first models left out water vapour, a green house pollutant many times greater than CO2 in effect? Have they fixed that yet? What about shredding data so no one else can do a peer review? What about squashing the democratic process to insist people do what you tell them? And what about the claim that AGW is perfectly proven in an imperfect world?

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

Even IF(and notice it is a big if) GW and the industrial revolution started at the same time, who says GW didnt cause the Industrial Revolution? I sat on a bus once and the bus was moving therefore I must have been the driver. Please...some common sense?

0 Replies

@layman,

Greenies have for years used extinction as a reason to get money. No wonder they climbed on board the doom and gloom AGW.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

I had not look at the code of the current climate models but my bet is they fall way short of the needed details and understanding to made meaningful predictions.

There are dozens of variables they can manipulate, or simply ignore, if it suits them. By inserting various numbers, however arbitrary they may be, into the parameters they can produce dozens of "models" which can "postdict" (i.e., more or less parallel established data from past records).

But those models will then go in all kinds of directions when projected into the future. What's that tellya?

1 Reply

@layman,

Even Einstein was guilty of fixing the numbers to achieve the desired result, except he owned up to it and was never happy that he had to do it. It always troubled him and was a problem he never solved.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Even Einstein was guilty of fixing the numbers to achieve the desired result, except he owned up to it and was never happy that he had to do it.

Yeah, you're talking about the cosmological constant thing, I take it. He has been suspected with doing the same, with "free parameters," to get the right precession number for the Mercury, too.

Funny thing is, now many phsicists are trying rehabilitate and re-assert the cosmological constant.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

now many physicists are trying rehabilitate and re-assert the cosmological constant.

Surely not...it was the one part of his work he always regretted.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Surely not...it was the one part of his work he always regretted.

Heh, yeah but it was NECESSARY. Until Hubble observations came out. Then it was an embarrassment. Now it is needed again, so, there ya go. It pops right back up.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

None of this is my point, which you keep avoiding by turning around like a headless chicken.

My point is that 80% of the world climatoligists carry more weight than you, me, or the club of rome. Do you agree or disagree? Yes or no response please, no running around.

You're just in denial. That's why you equate science and sci-fi, a bunch of economists and the entife scientific establishment, etc. These are defense mechanisms to avoid facing the truth. And if 80% of astronomers were making a similar prediction, you would go into the same denial again and watch old Count Floyd episodes on youtube to to reassure yourself...

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I am not a climatologist, indeed.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

3 Replies

@Ionus,

An excerpt or two, eh?

Quote:

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested...when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Earlier in this thread, I posted a link to a peer-reviewed article, published in a highly reputable journal, which showed the true percentage to be less than 1/3 of 1% (.003).

0 Replies

@Ionus,

It seems closer to 85%, or perhaps 90. What difference does it make? Even if it was 99.9%, you would still listen to the fairy tales of the 0.1%.

"oh please Big Oil Mommy, tell me reassuring lies so I can sleep at night. Would you PLEASE just lie to me once more? Those evil evil climatologists just scared the **** out of me..."

1 Reply

@Ionus,

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
By: Alex Epstein
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

Quote:

That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?

Quote:

because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use

Quote:

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels–which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

Quote:

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:

Quote:

in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

Quote:

Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

Hmm, what could have fueled this article? Interesting what can be learned when you read beyond the headline, eh?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

You are probably unaware of this but it is cheap energy that has brought about modern living standards. Playing around with something that works is not a clever idea. I dont trust politicians to get the trains to run on time, why would we hand over trillions of dollars to stifle cheap energy?

I noticed you didnt say the article was wrong but I assume you will be pointing out the political interests of the GW devotees? Just to prove you are not biased like you accuse others of being.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Why do you post if you dont read the ref?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Greenie had also done their very best to stop the massive use of nuclear power the only means we now have to produced meaningful and economic power that does not produce CO2.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Sorry but the world/god is not rule by a poll of 'experts' and you seems to have an almost religion faith in the climate priesthood.

No poll results will turn meaningless computer models into software that can yield meaningful and accurate predictions.

Science have never had the concept that if enough 'experts' agree with a theory that in itself is proof of that theory.

Scientific theories need to stand on their own and they need to match the known facts and they need to be able to result in accurate predictions.

1 Reply

AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know