Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

[BamaGrad03 146]

How is that a "smarmy pedantic semantical sidebar"?? It seems like a reasonable response to me. It was a relative short and direct answer to a simple question.

You made a semantical comment about "science" vs "scientists" yes, that's a pendantic assholish response that has no real contribution to the question at hand.

[Dom1ni0n 51]

That's actually what most scientists think. You get your view of what the proponents of global warming think from folks with their own agenda.

Most scientists assert what keeps grant money flowing in. They're not gonna cannibalize their own jobs.

Most scientists also thought we'd keep warming and warming and warming. Now that they were wrong, they have to come up with some reason that still supports their original theory. Just like it used to be 'global warming' and now it's 'global climate change.'

I'm still waiting on that ice age that those same scientists predicted in the 70s.

Stick around for the next 10,000 years...and it shall be delivered as promised.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The only thing that is ever proven is, that even science can be corrupted by money and politics.

[homersapien 11,337]

How is that a "smarmy pedantic semantical sidebar"?? It seems like a reasonable response to me. It was a relative short and direct answer to a simple question.

You made a semantical comment about "science" vs "scientists" yes, that's a pendantic assholish response that has no real contribution to the question at hand.

Well you failed to make the distinction with your question:

"Can science make mistakes?" Which, is literally, nonsensical.

My response addressed both that as well as the question (I think) you really meant to ask. I fail to see what is "pendantic assholish" about that.

Here's a hint about me you need to know: I take pride in my writing. That doesn't mean I don't make errors, it's just that I respect the art of writing and of literacy in general. It's sort of a hobby I retained after retiring from a job that required a lot of professional writing.

Consequently, I am very particular in the way I word things and I tend to hold others to that same standard. After all, I am spending my time in discourse with you and to expect anything less insults both of us.

Now to be honest, I don't really care if you respect that sort of literary discipline, but you need to know that's how I roll. And I don't suffer fools well.

If that's really so upsetting that you feel the need to insult me, then I suggest you start ignoring my posts. Life is too short to experience frustration and anger you don't need to.

[homersapien 11,337]

The only thing that is ever proven is, that even science can be corrupted by money and politics.

Actually, and not to get to philosophical, but that's not really true. Science is a discipline like a given martial art is a discipline (for example).

Once it is corrupted, it instantly ceases to be science and it becomes a sham.

[homersapien 11,337]

Do you believe in science or religion?

more--http://thenewamerica...-global-cooling

Faulty comparison. Should have been: Do you believe in science or wacko "denier" sites?

Do you believe science ever makes mistakes? Or takes guesses?

Science is a process, so by definition, it cannot make a mistake. However, science being a self-correcting process, whatever mistakes may be made by scientists are ultimately corrected.

The scientific process often starts with a "guess", called an hypothesis. Once this hypothesis is explored, a thesis often results, which is then further tested by scientists in order to confirm or deny it.

Does that help?

So if you disagreed with scientists in the 70s that we were going to enter another ice age, were you a wacko?

I said I would answer direct questions if they were serious. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in this case and respond with a web link to help your understanding of this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The only thing that is ever proven is, that even science can be corrupted by money and politics.

Actually, and not to get to philosophical, but that's not really true. Science is a discipline like a given martial art is a discipline (for example).

Once it is corrupted, it instantly ceases to be science and it becomes a sham.

Weeee Doggies. That there Chomsky fella, he aint got nuthin on you.

[homersapien 11,337]

The only thing that is ever proven is, that even science can be corrupted by money and politics.

Actually, and not to get to philosophical, but that's not really true. Science is a discipline like a given martial art is a discipline (for example).

Once it is corrupted, it instantly ceases to be science and it becomes a sham.

Weeee Doggies. That there Chomsky fella, he aint got nuthin on you.

Well, I did allude to the philosophical aspect of my response, so cut me a little slack.

[AFTiger 282]

Science is questioning the theory of manmade global warming by first critically examining the data used to support the hypothesis and with its own studies determining the absence of global warming. These findings are unacceptable to the warming alarmists. May we now label the alarmists as the "deniers?" Warming alarmists cling to beliefs as a religion, viciously attacking non-believers as stupid, dumb or other names. Alarmists are now the "flat earthers" by refusing to acknowledge the validity of studies questioning their beliefs.

[japantiger 4,051]

My memory must be bad then. I just remember when we moved to Alabama in 1983 it never seemed to get as hot as it does nowadays. The winters are a joke. I'm wearing T-shirts and shorts outside on Thanksgiving for Pete's sake. I'm not saying I believe in global warming but it does seem hotter nowadays.

I remember some 20+ consecutive days over 100 when I was in college at Bama in like 98 or 99. I don't believe we hit 100 this year in Birmingham.

What I find awfully convenient about climate science is that ALL our warming is because of the mean evil humans, but when the warming slows - counter to their projected models - it's all because of nature. Maybe, just maybe, that warming has to do with nature as well?

BG, man, guess you didn't get the talking points today...you can't inject logic into this...you won't extort any tax dollars taking this kind of attitude...The UN will sending a drone over your house if you continue this approach to reason unabated.

[homersapien 11,337]

Science is questioning the theory of manmade global warming by first critically examining the data used to support the hypothesis and with its own studies determining the absence of global warming. These findings are unacceptable to the warming alarmists. May we now label the alarmists as the "deniers?" Warming alarmists cling to beliefs as a religion, viciously attacking non-believers as stupid, dumb or other names. Alarmists are now the "flat earthers" by refusing to acknowledge the validity of studies questioning their beliefs.

Presumably, from your post you have some definitive feelings - if not knowledge - about the subject.

Here's a site for you to consider. It has attempted to address whatever objections or doubts you may harbor in the specific. Let me know if they didn't cover yours and I will help you dig further.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how-to-talk-to-a-sceptic/

[homersapien 11,337]

My memory must be bad then. I just remember when we moved to Alabama in 1983 it never seemed to get as hot as it does nowadays. The winters are a joke. I'm wearing T-shirts and shorts outside on Thanksgiving for Pete's sake. I'm not saying I believe in global warming but it does seem hotter nowadays.

I remember some 20+ consecutive days over 100 when I was in college at Bama in like 98 or 99. I don't believe we hit 100 this year in Birmingham.

What I find awfully convenient about climate science is that ALL our warming is because of the mean evil humans, but when the warming slows - counter to their projected models - it's all because of nature. Maybe, just maybe, that warming has to do with nature as well?

BG, man, guess you didn't get the talking points today...you can't inject logic into this...you won't extort any tax dollars taking this kind of attitude...The UN will sending a drone over your house if you continue this approach to reason unabated.

Yeah, that was logical all right, well, as long as you assume scientists are either unaware of, or simply disregard, natural sources of variation. :-\

Such a statement reveals total ignorance of how science works. It's an embarrassment for a forum that presumably features educated people.

[AFTiger 282]

I said I would answer direct questions if they were serious. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in this case and respond with a web link to help your understanding of this:

http://www.skeptical...ns-in-1970s.htm

Skeptical is a reflection of your religion and uses the same faulty data. Here are some web sites for you. http://en.wikipedia...._global_warming http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://heartland.org...ues/environment http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[BamaGrad03 146]

This looks and reads a lot like science

The monthly near-surface temperature record from the RSS satellites (above) shows no warming trend for 16 years 8 months. But go back 20 years and some warming shows up. The temperature climbed from 1993-1996, then stopped.

So the latest decade is a bit warmer than those that went before, but there has still been no warming for almost 17 years. Even the climate-science chairman of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, admits that

[homersapien 11,337]

This looks and reads a lot like science

LOL!!

That's close enough for you I am sure.

[homersapien 11,337]

I said I would answer direct questions if they were serious. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in this case and respond with a web link to help your understanding of this:

http://www.skeptical...ns-in-1970s.htm

Skeptical is a reflection of your religion and uses the same faulty data. Here are some web sites for you. http://en.wikipedia...._global_warming http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://heartland.org...ues/environment http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Well, I was really hoping you would use the site I posted to actually test your arguments and limit the discussion to that argument. I guess should have known better. Expansion of the topic is a time honored obfuscation tactic.

The site you refer to was to answer a specific question regarding the supposedly ice age prediction made in the 70's. Which it does, with references.

So I really don't feel asking me to evaluate denier sites in general is a fair response.

All sites or references are not equivalent, and I am sure you could have listed even more denier sites to "combat" my one. But if you insist, I can debunk them. But before I spend the time, could you go through and pick the "best" one or two to limit my task?

After all, you did nothing to discredit my one site.

P.S.: What do my religious beliefs have to do with this?.

[AFTiger 282]

Those who believed in global warming in the 70s were only partially right weren't they. Warming stopped 15 years ago contrary to their computer projections. When you are able to overcome your smugness and actually read contrary material, you may gain insight into my position.

I don't even think you bothered to read this thread or you would have realized that the religion to which I was referring was "global warming" as so plainly stated. If you did read it, maybe it was above your comprehension.

Bottom line. Global warming stopped 15 years ago. Global alarmists did not expect it and cannot explain the deviation from their precious computer models. Those who blindly swallow the alarmists theories are disingenuous and have other agendas.

Theory: The earth warms and cools naturally. See bamagrad.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Picard = " Deniers "

Cardassian = AGW zealots

[BamaGrad03 146]

This looks and reads a lot like science

LOL!!

That's close enough for you I am sure.

So you're saying the graph contains factually incorrect data?

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

...

Bottom line. Global warming stopped 15 years ago. Global alarmists did not expect it and cannot explain the deviation from their precious computer models. Those who blindly swallow the alarmists theories are disingenuous and have other agendas. ...

And that is the crux of this issue: all the dire warming predictions were predicted via computer models. Now that the models have been shown to be ... (how to put this delicately) ... "somewhat flawed," the logical next step would be to objectively examine if continuing to base future predictions on these same models is a smart thing to do.

[japantiger 4,051]

...

Bottom line. Global warming stopped 15 years ago. Global alarmists did not expect it and cannot explain the deviation from their precious computer models. Those who blindly swallow the alarmists theories are disingenuous and have other agendas. ...

And that is the crux of this issue: all the dire warming predictions were predicted via computer models. Now that the models have been shown to be ... (how to put this delicately) ... "somewhat flawed," the logical next step would be to objectively examine if continuing to base future predictions on these same models is a smart thing to do.

Logs...logic has nothing to do with this...you can't extort taxpayer dollars with logic...you need hysteria, you need drama, you need...well bull**** to cover for the fact that nothing in there.

[homersapien 11,337]

Raptor, JapanTiger, BamaGrad, AFTiger, Loggerhead:

(Hope I didn't leave anyone out)

Not to change the subject, but I have a off-topic question that I would like to ask of each of you.

Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific Theory (large T)?

[AURaptor 1,121]

1:50 AM is pretty late for an old feller to be still up and posting on the interwebs.

[AFTiger 282]

Raptor, JapanTiger, BamaGrad, AFTiger, Loggerhead:

(Hope I didn't leave anyone out)

Not to change the subject, but I have a off-topic question that I would like to ask of each of you.

Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific Theory (large T)?

I guess this thread is finished.

[BamaGrad03 146]

This looks and reads a lot like science

LOL!!

That's close enough for you I am sure.

So you're saying the graph contains factually incorrect data?

I'd like you to answer my question first, Homer.