Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

February 25th, 2021 at 6:35:37 PM permalink
JimRockford
Member since: Sep 18, 2015
Threads: 2
Posts: 971
Quote: kenarman
You actually make my point for me Jim. The actual data doesn't fit their models so they never say that possibly the basic premise is wrong but always find ways to spin it so that is doesn't make them look bad. You see this time and time again when they data doesn't fit their models but never admit that perhaps the sky isn't falling. 3 or 4 years ago (I'm too lazy to look it up) NASA came out for the first time and said Antarctic ice wasn't shrinking but increasing. The total science community called them down and insisted they were wrong. The pressure was so great they were made to retract their statement. Thankfully we have some scientists there that aren't scared to tell the truth and their data is still holding true years later and the published that fact. How does a poor student in University put up with that kind of pressure and survive in the academic world, they can't. Universities were once the hot bed of diverse opinions. Now students and professors are not allowed to be free thinkers. You either follow the group think or you are booted out of the club.


The comment about the model's shortcoming not negating the climate change premise is my opinion. I did not mean to imply that it came from the article. I don't pretend to know the science but any explanation for antarctic growing sea ice has to be consistent with the massive amount of data that shows that global temperatures are warming. so you can't just say "well the model doesn't predict this so the global temp must be stable after all". Antarctic land ice is shrinking. the amount of global sea ice is decreasing. Sea levels are rising. They can't spin it they have to do the hard work to test hypotheses with data. Until then they have to say they don't know. Something political types never do.

I would be interested to read more about NASA being pressured to retract data if you have a link. If not I will search for it.
The mind hungers for that on which it feeds.
February 25th, 2021 at 7:44:43 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18629
Quote:
Anyone with some debating skills can dismiss scientific facts that have been collected with great effort as nonsense or irrelevant without overexerting themselves and at the same time file their nails impassively. To the average audience, it feels like the scientist simply presents an opinion.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
February 25th, 2021 at 9:01:27 PM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 14
Posts: 4470
Quote: JimRockford
The comment about the model's shortcoming not negating the climate change premise is my opinion. I did not mean to imply that it came from the article. I don't pretend to know the science but any explanation for antarctic growing sea ice has to be consistent with the massive amount of data that shows that global temperatures are warming. so you can't just say "well the model doesn't predict this so the global temp must be stable after all". Antarctic land ice is shrinking. the amount of global sea ice is decreasing. Sea levels are rising. They can't spin it they have to do the hard work to test hypotheses with data. Until then they have to say they don't know. Something political types never do.

I would be interested to read more about NASA being pressured to retract data if you have a link. If not I will search for it.


The crux of the whole climate change debate is that increasing CO2 is the reason for increasing temperature hence all the rush to carbon free energy. I accept that temperatures are increasing although I don't accept the accuracy of many of the methods used to measure annual historical world wide temperature over centuries.

The methodology to show the tie between temperature and CO2 is the multitude of algorithms that are continually tweaked. The current algorithm is always put on a pedestal as though it was a hard fact, we must trust the science, until of course nature proves once again to be unpredictable but don't worry we have it right this time. This why the fact science claimed that Antarctic ice was declining based on modeling and not facts and when this is discovered there are no apologies but spin should make everyone seriously worry about how many other of the so called facts are not hard data.
"but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin
February 26th, 2021 at 2:22:52 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: JimRockford
And the only reason you know this truth is because the same climate scientists reported on it. Growing antarctic sea ice is unexpected, but no one tried to bury it for fear of losing funding. The article that you quoted goes on to talk about how climate scientist Paul Holland is studying it and trying to understand why, but the fact that the models don't perfectly predict the phenomenon does not mean that the basic premise of climate change is wrong. When they figure it out the model will be better.

https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/unexpected-ice


Actually if the model predicts decreasing ice and ice increases the model is completely wrong!

In the 70s they were worried about a new ice age. Now they worry we will boil to death. Maybe they should quit predicting the end of the world. Nah, that means they would have to leave the universities and do something productive in the real world.
The President is a fink.
February 26th, 2021 at 2:34:37 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: rxwine
Anyone with some debating skills can dismiss scientific facts that have been collected with great effort as nonsense or irrelevant without overexerting themselves and at the same time file their nails impassively. To the average audience, it feels like the scientist simply presents an opinion.


You might have credibility with this post if you and the entire left for that matter did not ignore science when it does not suit your positions. Lefties ignore science and for that matter history when it is inconvenient for their message.
The President is a fink.
February 26th, 2021 at 7:09:53 AM permalink
JimRockford
Member since: Sep 18, 2015
Threads: 2
Posts: 971
Quote: AZDuffman
Actually if the model predicts decreasing ice and ice increases the model is completely wrong!

In the 70s they were worried about a new ice age. Now they worry we will boil to death. Maybe they should quit predicting the end of the world. Nah, that means they would have to leave the universities and do something productive in the real world.

I read your post and I instinctively looked for a way to change the station on an AM radio. It's as if Rush still lives. (I know you take that as a compliment)

All models are wrong. They are approximations of reality. Models are judged by how useful they are and the climate models have not been proved less useful because of the antarctic sea ice phenomenon. To be clear, ice is decreasing. The global volume of ice is decreasing. The global volume of sea ice is decreasing. The volume of the antarctic ice sheet is decreasing. However the volume of antarctic sea ice is slightly increasing but it is more than compensated by the decrease in land ice.

Quote:
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml
The mind hungers for that on which it feeds.
February 26th, 2021 at 7:24:23 AM permalink
JimRockford
Member since: Sep 18, 2015
Threads: 2
Posts: 971
Quote: kenarman
The crux of the whole climate change debate is that increasing CO2 is the reason for increasing temperature hence all the rush to carbon free energy. I accept that temperatures are increasing although I don't accept the accuracy of many of the methods used to measure annual historical world wide temperature over centuries.

The methodology to show the tie between temperature and CO2 is the multitude of algorithms that are continually tweaked. The current algorithm is always put on a pedestal as though it was a hard fact, we must trust the science, until of course nature proves once again to be unpredictable but don't worry we have it right this time. This why the fact science claimed that Antarctic ice was declining based on modeling and not facts and when this is discovered there are no apologies but spin should make everyone seriously worry about how many other of the so called facts are not hard data.


https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

The early models are actually proving to be pretty accurate. I don't know what's wrong with continually making them better.
The mind hungers for that on which it feeds.
February 26th, 2021 at 8:10:31 AM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 14
Posts: 4470
Quote: JimRockford
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

The early models are actually proving to be pretty accurate. I don't know what's wrong with continually making them better.


I have no confidence that they try to make the models better. Our current scientific community have all staked their careers on human caused climate change. They have multiple ways of tweaking their models to allow for new information. Some versions would support their current position and some will not support that position. Which one do you think they will choose? You might call that "better". You have to ask the question "better" for the truth or "better" for their career.

I posted here several years ago the documented case of the 'scientists' changing hard data to better match their models. Contrary scientific opinions that have eventually been proven true and accepted have been suppressed for ever. Don't think that it can't be happening now.
"but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin
February 26th, 2021 at 8:23:30 AM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18629
Quote: AZDuffman
You might have credibility with this post if you and the entire left for that matter did not ignore science when it does not suit your positions. Lefties ignore science and for that matter history when it is inconvenient for their message.


I don't ignore science. For instance I'm fine with the idea that male and female genitalia have a corresponding biological co-relationship. I'd be happy to argue that all day. But science doesn't require we force people to only use them that way.

That's something guys like you come up with and want to say "science says" for some reason.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
February 26th, 2021 at 11:53:02 AM permalink
JimRockford
Member since: Sep 18, 2015
Threads: 2
Posts: 971
Quote: kenarman
I posted here several years ago the documented case of the 'scientists' changing hard data to better match their models.


Care to elaborate? I have seen several mischaracterizations along these lines but I don't know what indecent you are referring to.
The mind hungers for that on which it feeds.