Extremism in Climatology

[chalk2]

Apparently saying "Hey, maybe we shouldn't wreck and pollute the planet, it might backfire on us" is now "extremism".

Well, no. Taking non-science and calling it science to serve your agenda is extremism.

It doesn't matter if elements of the analysis are scientific. We can discuss the clear logic of the effect of greenhouse gasses but what is the point?

The contention is that Climate Science as pandered to us in the IPCC report is not science.

Clearly the overarching theory does not use the scientific method.... as you can see in their very own report.

Reality does not match theory. It is not even close.

1. Recognition and formulation of a theory.
2. collection of data through observation and experiment
3. formulation and testing of hypotheses

The problem is... the IPCC report shows when you take step #3 the predictions don't come anywhere close to actual results.

This is not science.

 

[selfinflikted]

Apparently saying "Hey, maybe we shouldn't wreck and pollute the planet, it might backfire on us" is now "extremism".

Right?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, no. Taking non-science and calling it science to serve your agenda is extremism.

It doesn't matter if elements of the analysis are scientific. We can discuss the clear logic of the effect of greenhouse gasses but what is the point?

The point would be that there is an obvious and scientifically supported mechanism that can cause global warming.

The contention is that Climate Science as pandered to us in the IPPCCC report is not science.

The contention is that scientists are not able to accurately predict the rate at which CO2 is warming the planet. However, there is no contention that CO2 is warming the planet, and there is no contention that humans are responsible for producing that CO2. The only debate is which models work best for predicting the amount of warming.

Clearly the overarching theory does not use the scientific method.... as you can see in their very own report.

Reality does not match theory. It is not even close.

That's what the scientific method is, comparing reality to theory.

In reality, the Earth is getting warmer. In reality, humans are pumping massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

1. Recognition and formulation of a theory.
2. collection of data through observation and experiment
3. formulation and testing of hypotheses

The problem is... the IPCC report shows when you take step #3 the predictions don't come anywhere close to actual results.

This is not science.

Comparing predictions to observations is not science?

 

[Heissonear]

It actually is science. It is based on physics and chemistry.

20-Year-Old Report Successfully Predicted Warming: Scientists | First IPCC Report

1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate

Take your bucket of whitewash home.

Presented this week at the 2014 AGU meeting was the publication in the link below.

The authors state the opposite to your whitewash. They discuss the IPCC erroneous predictions against what has been observed over time.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/agu_2014_fall_poster_michaels_knappenberger.pdf

“We conclude that at the global scale, this suite of climate models has failed. Treating them as mathematical hypotheses, which they are, means that it is the duty of scientists to, unfortunately, reject their predictions in lieu of those with a lower climate sensitivity.

Unless (or until) the collection of climate models can be demonstrated to accurately capture observed characteristics of known climate changes, policymakers should avoid basing any decisions upon projections made from them. Further, those policies which have already be established using projections from these climate models should be revisited. ”

You may want to stop referencing those on the AGW Bandwagon. And as the above authors state, "it is the duty of scientists to, unfortunately, reject their predictions". That mean get off the AGU Extremism Bandwagon, and leave the whitewash there.

.

 

[fargonic]

Did anyone notice in the Cato poster that in their "recent" data set they included a 2011 estimate from Lindzen and Choi that is lower than just about anything else on the graph? Seems that that might induce a "leverage" effect and pull the overall mean from these "recent" analyses down a bit.

 

[fargonic]

Take your bucket of whitewash home.

Please do try to be less disrespectful of other posters.

Presented this week at the 2014 AGU meeting was the publication in the link below.

The authors state the opposite to your whitewash. They discuss the IPCC erroneous predictions against what has been observed over time.

Actually it looks like their main point is to do the age-old "call into question the estimate of CO2 climate sensitivity" gambit. A reasonable approach but I'm uncertain how they came up with their lower CO2 climate sensitivity. It looks like they threw in an outlier there with Lindzen and Choi (2011) which is much, much lower than anyone else's. That would seem to pull their average down a bit.

Again, no one disputes that climate sensitivity of CO2 is not perfectly known. But then there are far more severe consequences if it is on the high side than on the low side.

Prudence calls for being somewhat more conservative.

 

[dad]

We do need them.

Thanks for playing.

No we do not need religious nerds making godless foolish fear mongering climate predictions as science claims, in any way whatsoever.

You must play by present state laws, God doesn't have to. The future is not yours to predict. Gong!

 

[chalk2]

1. Recognition and formulation of a theory.
2. collection of data through observation and experiment
3. formulation and testing of hypotheses

The problem is... the IPCC report shows when you take step #3 the predictions don't come anywhere close to actual results.

This is not science.

Comparing predictions to observations is not science?

Exactly, I think you have it.

The results show the predictions compared to actual results are baseless, yet no adjustment to the theory is considered. Anyone who disagrees and wants to question the "settled science" is an extremist.

That is not science. That is insanity.

Make a climate theory.
Test and gather data.
Compare to actual results.
Actual results show the climate science is garbage.

Change the premise? Absolutely not!!! Ignore! Ignore! Ignore! If you disagree you are an extremist!

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly, I think you have it.

The results show the predictions compared to actual results are baseless, yet no adjustment to the theory is considered.

Adjustments to the models are considered all of the time. New models are published every year. The models are coming closer and closer to real world data, just as you would expect from a scientific process.

Anyone who disagrees and wants to question the "settled science" is an extremist.

Frankly, those who disagree on forums like these usually don't understand the science, how science works, or how the scientific method is applied.

The settled science is that increasing carbon dioxide traps more heat. The hard part is predicting how much warming this will cause, and how rapid this warming will be. Those who "disagree" can't seem to understand the distinction between the two.

A good analogy is the urban myth of the physicists and the bumble bee. The urban myth tells of a group of physicists who try to create an aerodynamic model of how bees fly. Their model shows that bees should not be able to fly, and yet we all know that bees do fly. Those who don't understand how science works would argue that the bee defies the laws of nature. Those who understand how science work understand that the model needs work done, and the failure of the model in no way demonstrates that bees can't fly.

What we have with the internet flavor of climate denial is the flavor of person who thinks that the failure of the physics models means that bees can't fly. We already know that the planet is warming, and we already know that CO2 is a major reason for that warming. That is settled science, just as bees flying is settled science. The edge of the research right now is understanding the fine details of how that warming is going to play out.

Make a climate theory.
Test and gather data.
Compare to actual results.
Actual results show the climate science is garbage.

Increases in CO2 traps heat causing the planet to warm.

Planet is getting warmer, as the hypothesis predicts.

Hypothesis supported.

 

[Loudmouth]

No we do not need religious nerds making godless foolish fear mongering climate predictions as science claims, in any way whatsoever.

You must play by present state laws, God doesn't have to. The future is not yours to predict. Gong!

What we don't need is science deniers like yourself.

 

[dad]

What we don't need is science deniers like yourself.

We don't need God and creation deniers, and spinniers of tales falsely called knowledge such as what the laws were in the far past. I understand how that negates everything you are all about. Tough eh?

--For any lurkers who may happen to read this, relax. The lying and shrill false prophesies of the climate fear mongers are totally garbage. Fraud. The climate in the future according to God is GREAT! Food will grow like crazy! People will live very very long lives in peace.

 

[Loudmouth]

We don't need God and creation deniers, and spinniers of tales falsely called knowledge such as what the laws were in the far past. I understand how that negates everything you are all about. Tough eh?

The only tales are yours. You can't present a shred of evidence for your different state past. Every speck of evidence we have is consistent with a same state past.

 

[dad]

The only tales are yours. You can't present a shred of evidence for your different state past. Every speck of evidence we have is consistent with a same state past.

The only tales are yours. You can't present a shred of evidence for your same state past. Every speck of evidence we have is consistent with a different state past.

It is purely a matter of what people chose to believe. No excuses.

 

[selfinflikted]

The only tales are yours. You can't present a shred of evidence for your same state past. Every speck of evidence we have is consistent with a different state past.

Please present just ONE shred of evidence that is consistent with a different state past.

 

[Loudmouth]

The only tales are yours. You can't present a shred of evidence for your same state past.

Already have multiple times in multiple threads. You never deal with the evidence.

We can directly observe the decay rates of isotopes in distant supernovae as they were in the distant past, and you still ignore it. You ignore direct observations.

 

[dad]

Please present just ONE shred of evidence that is consistent with a different state past.

In ALL evidences available that I have seen, from the fossil record, to tectonic movements, etc etc a different state past fits best.

 

[dad]

Already have multiple times in multiple threads. You never deal with the evidence.

Fail. You always first assume and believe and build on that foundation. Always.

We can directly observe the decay rates of isotopes in distant supernovae as they were in the distant past, and you still ignore it. You ignore direct observations.

Guess you think that is your best shot. OK. Time may be different as we get far from earth. That alone means that nothing you observe in SNs are what you think, or take as long (away from earth area) as you think!

No need to even get into the rings that you never saw or predicted, the invented after the fact stars that you claim 'had to have' exploded, absolutely missing black hole and/or neutron star, etc etc.

Pathetic.


It amazes me how science is eager and willing to bend whatever rules it deems are required to explain things in a way that matches earth physics!

"
While the idea that the laws of physics can be dependent on one's frame of reference seems nonsensical, it could explain an anomaly in the 1987 observation of supernova SN1987a. An initial pulse of neutrinos was detected 7.7 hours before the first light from SN1987a reached Earth. This was followed by a second pulse of neutrinos, which arrived about three hours before the supernova light. Supernovae are expected to emit large numbers of neutrinos and the three-hour gap between the second burst of neutrinos and the arrival of the light agrees with the current theory of how a star collapses to create a supernova.
The first pulse of neutrinos is generally thought to be unrelated to the supernova. However, the probability of such a coincidence is statistically unlikely."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst

 

[chalk2]

Make a climate theory.
Test and gather data.
Compare to actual results.
Actual results show the climate science is garbage.

Increases in CO2 traps heat causing the planet to warm.

Planet is getting warmer, as the hypothesis predicts.

Hypothesis supported.

Statement #1 is true, very limited, and clearly NOT what climate science claims. You insult me with your overly simplistic premise.

The other two statements are patently false, disjointed from reality, and CLEARLY not what is being claimed by "climate science".

I would more accurately state the claim this way.

1. Increases in CO2 traps heat causing the planet to warm.
2. We must ignore all other factors and focus on #1, exclusively.
3. Earth is not getting warmer, all predictions fail as evidence in IPCC report, increases in man made CO2 do not have the impact scientists are demanding it has no matter how much they scream, pout, and pound on the table with a shoe.
4. Change hypothesis? NO. We must ignore the failed results, discount all other climate affecting factors, demand climate justice, and mock anyone that wants to change the hypothesis.

I can't believe you fall for it. This is not science my friend. It is an embarrassment to the scientific community.

Climate science does not reconcile with scientific principles. The IPCC report, THEIR OWN REPORT, PROVES it.

Time for a change in hypothesis or a new hypothesis. Not this emotional unscientific "If you don't believe the global warming hype you are a denier."

Enough with the oversimplification by stating "CO2 Greenhouse Gas" theory.

 

[fargonic]

I would more accurately state the claim this way.

1. Increases in CO2 traps heat causing the planet to warm.
2. We must ignore all other factors and focus on #1, exclusively.

At Statement #2 you became incredibly inaccurate. If you were to even look quickly at the first IPCC report in 1990 you would see that statement is inaccurate.

In fact going back decades the climate scientists have consistently and repeatedly kept track of MANY forcings other than just CO2. They look at natural forcings, man-made forcings, positive and negative forcings.

Why do denialists insist on misrepresenting this important and key feature?

3. Earth is not getting warmer, all predictions fail as evidence in IPCC report, increases in man made CO2 do not have the impact scientists are demanding it has no matter how much they scream, pout, and pound on the table with a shoe.

This is because scientists don't exclusively focus on CO2. Only denialists think that CO2 is the only factor.

4. Change hypothesis? NO. We must ignore the failed results, discount all other climate affecting factors, demand climate justice, and mock anyone that wants to change the hypothesis.

And again, incredibly incorrect. IF you were actually reading the literature you'd see that the current pause is under investigation utilizing a number of other forcings available (mainly Pacific currents at this time).

Please do not misrepresent the science. It is best to actually READ the science and then critique THAT, not misrepresent the science.

I can't believe you fall for it. This is not science my friend. It is an embarrassment to the scientific community.

Considering that most of what you said was technically INCORRECT and NOT AT ALL what the scientists do I'm afraid you are embarrassing someone other than the scientists.

Climate science does not reconcile with scientific principles. The IPCC report, THEIR OWN REPORT, PROVES it.

If you had ever actually read an IPCC report or part of it you'd realize how inaccurate your statement #2 (above) was. So, you have just shown us how much you know about the IPCC reports.

(Check it out here: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf)

Enough with the oversimplification by stating "CO2 Greenhouse Gas" theory.

While CO2 is very important, it is NOT the only thing looked at by the scientists.

Learn the science.

 

[Heissonear]

At Statement #2 you became incredibly inaccurate. If you were to even look quickly at the first IPCC report in 1990 you would see that statement is inaccurate.

In fact going back decades the climate scientists have consistently and repeatedly kept track of MANY forcings other than just CO2. They look at natural forcings, man-made forcings, positive and negative forcings.

Why do denialists insist on misrepresenting this important and key feature?
This is because scientists don't exclusively focus on CO2. Only denialists think that CO2 is the only factor.
And again, incredibly incorrect. IF you were actually reading the literature you'd see that the current pause is under investigation utilizing a number of other forcings available (mainly Pacific currents at this time).

Please do not misrepresent the science. It is best to actually READ the science and then critique THAT, not misrepresent the science.
Considering that most of what you said was technically INCORRECT and NOT AT ALL what the scientists do I'm afraid you are embarrassing someone other than the scientists.
If you had ever actually read an IPCC report or part of it you'd realize how inaccurate your statement #2 (above) was. So, you have just shown us how much you know about the IPCC reports.
(Check it out here: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf)
While CO2 is very important, it is NOT the only thing looked at by the scientists.

Learn the science.

.


Why refute the more recent science publications exposing the error in the CAGW bandwagon science?

Are you on the CAGW bandwagon or a scientist following the scientific method AND rejecting and exposing false predictions in light of what does not agree with observations?

Again, this week at the AGU meeting the following was presented.


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or...ppenberger.pdf

“We conclude that at the global scale, this suite of climate models has failed. Treating them as mathematical hypotheses, which they are, means that it is the duty of scientists to, unfortunately, reject their predictions in lieu of those with a lower climate sensitivity.

Unless (or until) the collection of climate models can be demonstrated to accurately capture observed characteristics of known climate changes, policymakers should avoid basing any decisions upon projections made from them. Further, those policies which have already be established using projections from these climate models should be revisited. ”

.