Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[K4fxd]

I’ll remind you one more time just how ****** accurate the ****** models are

According to the models the Pacific islands were supposed to be underwater by now.
According to the models hurricanes were supposed to be more numerous and stronger than ever.
According to the models the glaciers were supposed to be gone by now.
According to the models Polar bears were to be extinct by now

Yep the models are perfect. Perfectly inaccurate.

Think about this, if we couid control the climate we could make the Sahara desert a tropical rain forest.

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

According to the models the Pacific islands were supposed to be underwater by now.
According to the models hurricanes were supposed to be more numerous and stronger than ever.
According to the models the glaciers were supposed to be gone by now.
According to the models Polar bears were to be extinct by now

Yep the models are perfect. Perfectly inaccurate.

Think about this, if we couid control the climate we could make the Sahara desert a tropical rain forest.

Eight low-lying Pacific islands swallowed whole by rising seas | New Scientist

Record-breaking Atlantic hurricane season draws to an end | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (noaa.gov)

Study: 2019 Sees Record Loss of Greenland Ice – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

Polar bear population decline a wake up call for climate change action | Stories | WWF (worldwildlife.org)

As usual you talk rubbish - but hey you are never wrong and facts don't mean anything.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; I was about to use Burkey as a foil again, but decided to just stick to addressing the points. A margin of error is common in most endeavors. However when the tool is being used to push me into a situation I have little confidence about, I do not want to discover well into the process that the tool has been flawed.
This will not be an analogy but may express the same sort of feeling. Tesla company made a deal to install some solar panels at a set price. A contract was made. In the middle of the project Tesla decided to increase the price for the panels. The people are suing Tesla and I do not blame them.

In the course of this thread I have found two reports of flaws in the computer climate models and posted links about this. This thread is taking place well after some states have legislated against the sale of ICE vehicles. After companies have vowed to make only EV's in a few years. These decisions must have been made based on information touted as being very accurate in the recent past. If my posts of two flaws in the models hold true then the premise for the decisions may have been flawed.

Of course there will be “some” models that don’t work.
Governments aren’t taking their advice from ONE source.
They are looking at a variety of sources and looking at the general trend.

Let’s get some context here.
The planet has warmed ~1*c over the past century. Call it 0.1*c per decade (on average).
If the models are 10% wrong, you get a total of 1.1*c per century. Do you think government policy would be different if the warming was 0.11*c vs 0.1*c per decade?

Do you think it’s likely that the models are missing the mark by anything greater than 10%?

Take a look at Broecker‘s work, published in 1975. His prediction was pretty darn good for something that was published in what we might call the early days of climate models. I wonder what we might have learned in the nearly 50 years that have passed since then?

Or, we could look at the IPCC‘s very first assessment, which is based on a range of models. Notice how the models all seem to converge on more or less the same thing? I don’t see any of them predicting something vastly different.
I also note just how well the models predicted average global temp 40 years into the future.

I wonder how good the models might be in 2021…..
I think it’s time you gave up on this one. The fossil fuel industry has sold you a lie. They‘ve encouraged you to be sceptical,which is great, but you’re now being presented with evidence that contradicts what they’ve told you.
Now, go find the models that made predictions that don’t even vaguely line up with the observations and we can talk about it.

I don‘t care what is claimed, I care about what is supported by EVIDENCE. You should be exactly the same if you’re going to play sceptic.

 

[Burkey]

According to the models the Pacific islands were supposed to be underwater by now.
According to the models hurricanes were supposed to be more numerous and stronger than ever.
According to the models the glaciers were supposed to be gone by now.
According to the models Polar bears were to be extinct by now

Yep the models are perfect. Perfectly inaccurate.

Think about this, if we couid control the climate we could make the Sahara desert a tropical rain forest.

Find me the scientific papers that made these claims. I’ll wait.
Evidence. You either have it or you don’t.

Also, the models make NO prediction about polar bear extinctions. The models report the predicted average global temp increase and how that might impact a variety of systems on the planet.

There is a fear that polar bears (among many other species) might face potential extinction at SOME point in time. This is hardly controversial.

I know exactly why you keep crapping on about polar bears, but I’m giving you enough rope to hang yourself once more.

Your final claim re: The Sahara…
Oh dear…youve once again shown us just how poor your understanding of the topic really is.
And you think governments should take note of your objections? You’re joking right?

Now go find the evidence that you think you have.

 

[K4fxd]

I remember these claims, all from scientists. Now the new scientists are claiming the same things, just further in the future. Long enough in the future most of us won't be around to find they are false. Just like past predictions were.

So far nothing you have presented as evidence explains why the earth warmed and cooled in the past. Until that is explained you cannot say the current warming is not just a normal event.,

 

[Burkey]

I remember these claims, all from scientists. Now the new scientists are claiming the same things, just further in the future. Long enough in the future most of us won't be around to find they are false. Just like past predictions were.

So far nothing you have presented as evidence explains why the earth warmed and cooled in the past. Until that is explained you cannot say the current warming is not just a normal event.,

It seems that we’ve finally honed in on the problem here.
Stick with me on this…

A scientist can SAY literally ANYTHING, that doesn’t make it true, nor does it mean that it is supported by what is written in the scientific literature.
Stop listening to media reports that don’t cite the papers where the information comes from.
If the paper is cited, go and read it for yourself. Scepticism DEMANDS that you don’t take anyone’s word for ANYTHING.
Quite frequently, reporters have a habit of paraphrasing and missing the nuance of what was actually written in the literature. In an interview, a scientist isn’t constrained by the process of peer-review, hence, they can make up the wildest shit you could ever imagine.
BE SCEPTICAL!

I‘d strongly encourage you to watch this video so that you can see for yourself just how poorly the media have (at times) reported on various aspects of the literature.

This isn’t intended to change your mind on the premise of the argument but rather to educate you so that you can at least put yourself in a position to be able to filter the wheat (that which is actually supported in the scientific literature) from the chaff (random claims).


Yes, it’s 25 minutes long but it will go a LONG way to educating you on how to assess claims.

 

[K4fxd]

Still doesn't explain the natural warming and cooling.

 

[Burkey]

Still doesn't explain the natural warming and cooling.

What doesn’t?

 

[Burkey]

Still doesn't explain the natural warming and cooling.

You’ve had the natural warming and cooling explained to you several times now.
I can do it again but it seems that it would be a waste of time. Again.

More to the point, why the hell are you asking me? I’m no authority on the matter. You may as well ask a politician or your hair stylist.

What you COULD do, is ask google. You know, actually go and “do the research”.

Pretty sure that’s what I was advocating for when I shared that video recently, telling you to stop listening to randoms and instead go and find out what the scientific literature says, like a PROPER sceptic would.

 

[Redeemer]

Of course there will be “some” models that don’t work.
Governments aren’t taking their advice from ONE source.
They are looking at a variety of sources and looking at the general trend.

Let’s get some context here.
The planet has warmed ~1*c over the past century. Call it 0.1*c per decade (on average).
If the models are 10% wrong, you get a total of 1.1*c per century. Do you think government policy would be different if the warming was 0.11*c vs 0.1*c per decade?

Do you think it’s likely that the models are missing the mark by anything greater than 10%?

Take a look at Broecker‘s work, published in 1975. His prediction was pretty darn good for something that was published in what we might call the early days of climate models. I wonder what we might have learned in the nearly 50 years that have passed since then?

Or, we could look at the IPCC‘s very first assessment, which is based on a range of models. Notice how the models all seem to converge on more or less the same thing? I don’t see any of them predicting something vastly different.
I also note just how well the models predicted average global temp 40 years into the future.

I wonder how good the models might be in 2021…..
I think it’s time you gave up on this one. The fossil fuel industry has sold you a lie. They‘ve encouraged you to be sceptical,which is great, but you’re now being presented with evidence that contradicts what they’ve told you.
Now, go find the models that made predictions that don’t even vaguely line up with the observations and we can talk about it.

I don‘t care what is claimed, I care about what is supported by EVIDENCE. You should be exactly the same if you’re going to play sceptic.

I haven't read much of what I found on this site but from what I gather, they link to articles supporting arguments on both sides. I will have a look at most of them in due time if they seem legit: https://skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=181

As for the IPCC reports, you need to throw all of that out if you expect to be taken seriously. The UN has an agenda completely separate fro truth, and the interests of the United States, as well as any individuals. Any and all sources tied to that useless organization which, at best, is dedicated to the squandering of American wealth, can be nullifed as corrupt, coerced, and grossly inaccurate. Just typing the initials "UN" makes me feel filthy and violated, like renting a car and finding out it's a Camaro. Ewwww.

Oh and what about all those climate scientists that falsified mountains of data? Probably god to factor them into the equation.

 

[Burkey]

I haven't read much of what I found on this site but from what I gather, they link to articles supporting arguments on both sides. I will have a look at most of them in due time if they seem legit: https://skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=181

As for the IPCC reports, you need to throw all of that out if you expect to be taken seriously. The UN has an agenda completely separate fro truth, and the interests of the United States, as well as any individuals. Any and all sources tied to that useless organization which, at best, is dedicated to the squandering of American wealth, can be nullifed as corrupt, coerced, and grossly inaccurate. Just typing the initials "UN" makes me feel filthy and violated, like renting a car and finding out it's a Camaro. Ewwww.

Oh and what about all those climate scientists that falsified mountains of data? Probably god to factor them into the equation.

The IPCC doesn’t conduct research science.
So you can forget about attacking the reports they compile. ALL of the data they use has passed peer-review. If you want to dispute the data, go for it. You can start by reviewing the scientific literature and raising your objections as you go.

 

[Redeemer]

You’ve had the natural warming and cooling explained to you several times now.
I can do it again but it seems that it would be a waste of time. Again.

More to the point, why the hell are you asking me? I’m no authority on the matter. You may as well ask a politician or your hair stylist.

What you COULD do, is ask google. You know, actually go and “do the research”.

Pretty sure that’s what I was advocating for when I shared that video recently, telling you to stop listening to randoms and instead go and find out what the scientific literature says, like a PROPER sceptic would.

If you want an unbiased result in your "research" Google is probably the last place you want to go. Just sayin.

 

[Burkey]

If you want an unbiased result in your "research" Google is probably the last place you want to go. Just sayin.

I’m saying that a person can use google SCHOLAR in order to find actual scientific literature, published in respected, peer-reviewed journals, rather than finding whatever it is that they want to find that fits their agenda, regardless of what that might be.
Alternatively, they can rely on any of the various scientific academies to report the information in lay-speak.
What they shouldn’t be doing is relying on media reports, bloggers and politicians.

 

[Redeemer]

The IPCC doesn’t conduct research science.
So you can forget about attacking the reports they compile. ALL of the data they use has passed peer-review. If you want to dispute the data, go for it. You can start by reviewing the scientific literature and raising your objections as you go.

Lets forget the fervor for a sec though and examine the reality. This goes beyond climate science and pretty much encompasses EVERYTHING any government touches, and increases the fraud by orders of magnitude when you involve the UN. When the people creating the computer model (Not limited to climate science) have a vested interest in the outcome, you automatically have a conflict of interest and have to throw all of their data away. It is biased and useless.

I wish this weren't the case. I wish the propaganda about the UN being this great united global benevolent body were true but it is simply a lie. Just like the vast majority of manipulated "studies" you are citing. It is a fantasy, designed to make you feel personally responsible, and to guilt you into giving up freedoms.

You (and many of the global warming alarmists I deal with) seem very intelligent. The problem is, you think governments have your best interests at heart. They don't. You have been conditioned to trust the "experts" but in many cases they aren't experts at all. They are indoctrinated useful idiots who actually believe the lies and garbage they are asking you to swallow as well.

We could argue this specific topic for days and make no progress convincing one another. Often times the alarmists present what appear to be very well thought out arguments, backed by research, but I'm sorry, you simply HAVE to follow the money. The money, and the social control are what this is truly about. The obscene sums of money so many institutions, governments, corporations, and individuals stand to make off of forcing this hoax down our throats trumps any scientific argument on either side of the coin. Until you at least factor that variable into your trove of data, you can't tae an honest and accurate position. It is simply a denial of reality.

 

[sk47]

Hello; As you have already figured out we are talking to a few true believers. There is nothing can be done to change their point of view. If I find links showing flaws in the models which they have faith in, then to them it does not matter about the flaws or that the models have missed several predictions already. Among their answers is that no model is perfect and so what if a model is off by 10% currently, they still feel the models will be correct in 50 years. In my world view a predictive tool which is off by 10% is a big error rate. A 10% error will be magnified over time and decades from now will not be accurate.

Another way they work it is to reject any sources we can come up with which does not help their cause. They will accept only some sources. I did manage to slow them down a bit with a recent link. One of them objected to it and it turned out to be from a legit source. ( the link to how CO2 maybe causing warming at a lesser rate) That was where one of them stated that even a 10% error rate ought not to be a big deal the way I read the comeback.

K4fxd has good points with the Michel C book. I am not sure if I have read that one but will if I can find it. That some information is censored from the web search sites is important. Control the information and control the meanings of words and terms seems to be part of the playbook.

I do not post with the notion of having any influence on the true believers. They approach this issue much like it's a religion. So the point for me is those who follow the thread without making comments. I try to keep it above the petty name calling although I do take a small jab from time to time. I hope to present some logical and thought out comments. After all we are being pushed into a serious lifestyle change.

Warming of the planet can have some serious consequences and best I can determine there is some of it we will have to endure regardless of what gets done. I have found at least one source suggesting the CO2 effect is less than we have been led to believe. If true this will give us some more time. I think the 2030 year ban on ICE is too extreme.
I think the move to do away with all fossil fuels is not only too extreme but purely foolish. It is understood that as many as two billion people have food because of the fertilizer made from natural gas. We went to an industrial style of agriculture some time back. We are at a population level two billion people above what the earth can feed using older farming tech. To turn around all the equipment needed to feed the people of the world by 2035 is just not practical and this does not get into power generation at all.

I could make do with an EV. Make do but not like it. I also suspect there are kinks yet to be worked out. After all it appears about 20% of EV owners went back to an ICE. And yes I am against some of the change in lifestyle simply because it is being forced onto us. I cannot defend that part of my viewpoint in an absolutely practical way, but there are some inherent issues with an EV that make it a questionable mass transportation device. May be we are going to trade one form of energy source with some problems for another source of energy with it's own set of problems and it may not be all that green.

Last bit today. Follow the money. I will keep posting links about the money. Best i can tell so far is something like six trillion US dollars is on the table is some form or another. But that is for another day.

Sponsored