Jump to content

Climate Consensus Con Game


AFTiger

Recommended Posts

From climate scientist S. Fred Singer

At the outset, let's be quite clear: There is no consensus about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) -- and there never was. There is not even a consensus on whether human activities, such as burning fossil fuels to produce useful energy, affect global climate significantly. So what's all this fuss about?

Let's also be quite clear that science does not work by way of consensus. Science does not progress by appeal to authority; in fact, major scientific advances usually come from outside the consensus; one can cite many classic examples, from Galileo to Einstein. [Another way to phrase this issue: Scientific veracity does not depend on fashionable thinking.] In other words, the very notion of a scientific consensus is unscientific.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/climate_consensus_con_game.html#ixzz2tawr3hxm

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Exchange Carbon emissions by paying off the governments of the world. Carbon=big business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about Obama hypocracy. There is plenty of water in Utah and Wyoming that used to come to California. it is now blocked by the liberal envirionmentalists to protect the snail darter. Obama just wants some pork for his buddies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worst President in the History of the United States. Hands down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is all about the money....check out who is a partial owner in a Carbon Exchange started up in Chicago. Oh, and they couldn't sell global warming so went to climate change...yes our climate is changing...but the funny thing is it has been since the earth came into the solar system....ice age, little ice age, warming period in europe....any of that ring a bell? with anything like this follow the money....that is where you will find out the real problem. If they were doing this for altruism we wouldn't have the gigantic wind turbines in cali killing birds of prey and not getting fined....but if we did something that caused the death of one of those birds...we would be in a sling...also if they really wanted us to go green we could be better off doing it at the household level and generate more power from our homes than we normally use but that would upset the power companies and their lobbyists...I am so tired of these people pushing this agenda...if you run into a person that is pushing this challenge them with facts...they cannot handle that....my niece was big on global warming...now since she is getting her masters in Geology and studying the climate change of the past has changed her tune to thinking realistically about this..not everyone agrees and until we can sit down and have an honest discussion on this subject it will not be nothing more than a taxing money grab.... Oh and homer if you don't like it...you don't have to post....or read these topics....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you guys wouldn't start these thread. (To be honest, I just read the thread title)

I find them embarrassing to be on the site.

And I'm embarrassed not that you're an Auburn fan, but that you're a human being.

Consensus is not science. To make the declarative statement " the debate is settled " is overtly ANTI scientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's raise taxes and save the world.

Don't even kid about that. :-X The libs will take you as being serious.

They've not been shy in stating that's exactly their plan. And anyone who tries to stand up to them is called a "denier " , or worse.

John Effing Kerry has the nerve to call AGW a " WMD ". And who are the biggest villains on the planet ? The United States, of course. Our own SecState is basically calling our nation a threat to humanity . In my book, that's hedging on treason.

But, who cares, right ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you guys wouldn't start these thread. (To be honest, I just read the thread title)

I find them embarrassing to be on the site.

Open your narrow mind and read the article.

Also read this:

How did global warming discussions end up hinging on what's happening with polar bears, unverifiable predictions of what will happen in a hundred years, and whether people are "climate deniers" or "global warming cultists?" If this is a scientific topic, why aren't we spending more time discussing the science involved? Why aren't we talking about the evidence and the actual data involved? Why aren't we looking at the predictions that were made and seeing if they match up to the results? If this is such an open and shut case, why are so many people who care about science skeptical? Many Americans have long since thought that the best scientific evidence available suggested that man wasn't causing any sort of global warming. However, now, we can go even further and suggest that the planet isn't warming at all.

1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless.

5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral.

Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years....The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a “tipping point” beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Of course, the highway is still there.

Meanwhile, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. James Hansen of NASA fame predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming.

If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what's really going on?

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still embarrassing to have such ignorance of the basic issue* displayed by AU grads. I suppose the only consolation I have is the knowledge that AU is no more or less representative than other universities in this regard. After all, many university grads are relatively ignorant scientifically speaking.

* (By basic issue, I refer to the scientific consensus that AGW is real. Most of what you guys are obsessing about are side issues that are merely political fall out from the scientific conclusion it is real. There is a difference, even though you don't recognize it.)

Anyway, I am willing to try to help anyone understand the basic science that lies behind the conclusion AGW is real. On the other hand, it is obvious there is nothing I can contribute to the political discussion that could make a difference.

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still embarrassing to have such ignorance of the basic issue* displayed by AU grads. I suppose the only consolation I have is the knowledge that AU is no more or less representative than other universities in this regard. After all, many university grads are relatively ignorant scientifically speaking.

* (By basic issue, I refer to the scientific consensus that AGW is real. Most of what you guys are obsessing about are side issues that are merely political fall out from the scientific conclusion it is real. There is a difference, even though you don't recognize it.)

Anyway, I am willing to try to help anyone understand the basic science that lies behind the conclusion AGW is real. On the other hand, it is obvious there is nothing I can contribute to the political discussion that could make a difference.

Peace.

If you had read the article, you would understand that consensus is not science. Your mind is closed to differing opinions thereby demonstrating your ignorance and arrogantly so. Faithfully reciting the AGW mantra is not a legitimate discussion and certainly will not sway those of us with open minds. When you examine the data of Michael Mann et. al. you will discover it is flawed and wrongly concluded. AGW is base on modeling and again if you had bothered to read the article you would know that every model has been badly in error.

Don't feel embarrassed for us. I am not embarrassed by your tiny loquacious mind. I feel pity for your uncurious faith in this new found religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you have to do is go to the home page of the site hosting the article and note the political bias. Or, you can think about the premise of; consensus in science is inherently bad. Or, you can be content in the world believing your political bias provides simple, absolute answers for almost everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you have to do is go to the home page of the site hosting the article and note the political bias. Or, you can think about the premise of; consensus in science is inherently bad. Or, you can be content in the world believing your political bias provides simple, absolute answers for almost everything.

OK this statement is nonsense. AGW is only political because it is being used to push a political agenda espoused by the left.

That being said, consensus is not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...simple questions that has been put forth for those that believe in global warming is man made and we are causing all of these problems and the mass destruction that will befall us:

1. How do you explain why the temperature hasn't risen since 1997?

2. How did the earth go into and out of the ice age? (less people than today and they weren't driving vehicles back then)

3. What is the gas that mostly affects temperature change?

Now some fella on here wanted to help us understand the science...so here is your chance....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AF, I didn't say consensus is science. However, logic would dictate that consensus by itself can neither prove nor disprove anything. However, the use of consensus opinion as evidence against, is a stupid argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...simple questions that has been put forth for those that believe in global warming is man made and we are causing all of these problems and the mass destruction that will befall us:

1. How do you explain why the temperature hasn't risen since 1997?

2. How did the earth go into and out of the ice age? (less people than today and they weren't driving vehicles back then)

3. What is the gas that mostly affects temperature change?

Now some fella on here wanted to help us understand the science...so here is your chance....

There's going to be a whole lot of PRATT in this thread if we start discussing the science of it, but I'll have a go at your questions.

1. Actually, 1998 was supposedly warmer than 1997 and was supposedly a record year. But this illustrates the importance of not cherry picking your data. NASA actually has 2005 breaking 1998's record as well. It's about long term trends. It would take decades of measurement before we could reasonably assert that the warming trend stopped in 1997.

cru_2005.gif

2. The theory is that it's the result of a combination of factors: atmospheric composition, flow of the ocean currents and the effect the position of the continents may have on them, and slight wobbles in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles.

3. Water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas, but it's a bit of a wildcard. It's the biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, but its concentrations are dependent on temperature. The general theory is that the recent warming is a result of all the CO2 we've been producing since the dawn of the industrial era. Estimates suggest it's the highest it's been in 800,000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then stop using consensus opinion as an argument for AGW and use science.

Has ICHY done that? I missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a serious question? How many documented years do scientists have on weather patterns v/s the number of years the planet has existed? Imagine that ratio.

There's no doubt humans have polluted the planet. The water, air, and soil is contaminated with various metals and chemical compounds. That said, an eruption by a volcano can emit the amount of pollution as humans have over the course of a 1,000 years. The climate change special interests care only about more centralized power and the destruction of capitalism. This whole thing is centered around political and social engineering and rarely focuses on pollution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...