Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
jacee

Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

Recommended Posts

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. I said no such thing.

Here's what you wrote:

The question does not any way imply that man is responsible or that warming will be a catastrophe yet you wish to imply that is what scientists believe.

Now, certainly I implied the first point (actually stated it outright, not implied).

But I never implied that there is a consensus on catastrophe.

Although, helpfully, I did ponder exactly the opposite.

So--assuming we're both conversing in English--my "implication" was of scientific consensus on human influence on climate change.

And you certainly take umbrage with the claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the West has made the decision to not take preventative measures, I expect that this means we will accept responsibility for the results when they hit the poorest of our brothers & citizens on earth.

That is a decision, although it is a risky one.

And why is it that "the West" must take responsibility for all the "poorest of our brothers"? It is precisely that kind of language and mindset that most repels a significant portion of our society from believing in or caring about global warming. It is this mindset that makes people like TimG believe that climate change is nothing but a way for leftists to redistribute wealth from the rich nations to the poor ones. By injecting socialist dogma into what should be a scientific and technical matter, you make it political, and thus a subject to the gridlock and inaction that is characteristic of our political systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never believed that an increase of CO2 emissions can change our climate to the point where a catastrophe would occur.

There are many organisms and life forms on Earth that consume CO2.

Not to mention the fact that scientists have only been measuring the Earths climate for a short time.

I believe such things as environmental disasters have occurred (oil spills and other nuclear disasters).

But not global warming

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never believed that an increase of CO2 emissions can change our climate to the point where a catastrophe would occur.

There are many organisms and life forms on Earth that consume CO2.

Not to mention the fact that scientists have only been measuring the Earths climate for a short time.

I believe such things as environmental disasters have occurred (oil spills and other nuclear disasters).

But not global warming

WWWTT

Yet despite their consumption the concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea. Prince charles famously said we have until 2017. That's only about four years away!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

What does that have to do with what I said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has, happened without the help of Man, many times before.

Are you going to next blame the earthquakes on Global Warming?

a tiny bit of critical thinking on your part would reveal that yes indeed cc will effect plate tectonics/earth quakes...the canadian shield is still "bouncing" back from the glaciation period that will have consequences in regards to earthquakes, the end of glaciation is climate change...as the greenland ice sheet melts there will be consequences to plate tectonics, as the antarctic ice sheet melts the decrease in weight on Antarctica will be felt in earthquakes there and increased weight of water will effect plate tectonics world wide...

this is very simple engineering problem, if you reduce weight or increase weight on a structure there will be consequences, the structure in this case is not a building or bridge but plate tectonics...

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/560158/scientists_find_link_between_global_warming_and_earthquakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Anti-CO2 regulation is a dead political issue in most countries. The only people paying any attention to the endless drumbeat of climate doom are the activists. It is largely because people are realizing that it is largely a scam driven left wing political activists and companies looking to cash in on government regulations.

ha that sounds similar to your claims about exaggeration in regards to a nuclear meltdown in Fukishima, the experts and leftist activists were wrong you claimed...but they weren't, you were...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never believed that an increase of CO2 emissions can change our climate to the point where a catastrophe would occur.

There are many organisms and life forms on Earth that consume CO2.

Not to mention the fact that scientists have only been measuring the Earths climate for a short time.

I believe such things as environmental disasters have occurred (oil spills and other nuclear disasters).

But not global warming

WWWTT

then come up with another correlation that fits...scientists have examined the evidence from every angle and every other potential cause has been ruled out, looking at every potential cause one variable keeps attaching itself to warming temps, increasing co2 levels...and no it's not the sun...

it's simple science, if you change the concentration of a mixture the mixture's properties MUSTchange, it can do nothing else...co2 is a GHG there is no debate about that NONE, increase the amount of CO2 to the mixture(atmosphere) and the earth must warm, it can do nothing else...the only questions left to be asked is how warm will it get and how quickly it will occur...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not 97% of them. Also even among those that agree that man has contributed there are different opinions on how much contribution.

Yet you bring the 97% stat into this thread in attempt to imply that anyone who disagrees with anything said about the CAGW activities is going against the overwhelming consensus. The issue I raised was about the endless attempts to link "extreme weather" to AGW - attempts which are rejected by many in the scientific community. What does the the 97% have to with that?

Not many - if any - actual scientists deny the existence or human contribution to climate change any more:

July 31, 2012 12:44PM A prominent climate-change denier now admits he was wrong. Astrophysics Professor Richard A. Muller says his doubts about previous climate change studies vanished after reviewing intensive research involving a dozen scientists. Muller now says global warming is real, and he goes a step further, saying humans are almost entirely the cause.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/Climate-Change-Skeptic-s-Turnaround/story.xhtml?story_id=01300000NHS6

I think you're still listening to the lobbyists hired by the oil industry who pretend to be scientists.

You might want to check out some more recent information. The speeded up ice melt has caught scientists by surprise, and many have revised their estimates.

Anyone know if the oil sands are still viable if they're under water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ha that sounds similar to your claims about exaggeration in regards to a nuclear meltdown in Fukishima, the experts and leftist activists were wrong you claimed...but they weren't, you were...
Actually, they were completely wrong. Fukishima has been a completely localized problem which is what I said from the start. The radiation danger outside of the immediate area of the plant is non-existent. But you would not have believe that if you listened to the chicken littles during the crisis. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is NO evidence that the weather is weirder/extreme that in the past.

All we see here are CAGW fanatics desperate to shore up their endless narrative of doom looking for patterns in random events.

Climate prediction is no better than astrology. But like astrology there are plenty of deluded people who really want to believe in it. That does not mean it has an merit.

OK. Your reference to astrology is ludicrous. Why are you buying into the big corporate agenda of "prevent change so our business models need not incur the cost of change"?

In the past there were mass extinctions. We know this.

The ocean has gone stagnant before. We know this.

If the ocean goes stagnant, hydrogen sulphide producing bacteria grow rampantly. FYI - Hydrogen Sulphide is toxic.

We are having an impact that could cause a mass extinction... we need to change what we are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not many - if any - actual scientists deny the existence or human contribution to climate change any more:
Lesson in logic for you: believing that there is a human contribution to climate change does not is any way establish that:

1) There are more extreme events occurring than in the past;

2) That there is a causal link between climate change and extreme events.

You also need to recognize that there are a lot of scientists who would be out of work if they can't find funding. This gives them a huge incentive to exaggerate and/or misrepresent the magnitude of the of whatever effect they think might exists. The need to find funding biases research more than any other factor out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also need to recognize that there are a lot of scientists who would be out of work if they can't find funding. This gives them a huge incentive to exaggerate and/or misrepresent the magnitude of the of whatever effect they think might exists. The need to find funding biases research more than any other factor out there.

You need to recognize that the oil industry still has over $100,000,000,000,000 of oil money left to work on based on today's price of oil and "proven reserves".

But yes, that group of scientists trying to save the planet making paltry salaries compared to most people in the oil industry. THEY ARE THE ONES WITH THE TRUE CONSPIRACY.

Do you under stand how ludicrous your stance sounds? Scientists are peer reviewed and based on stats/data collection against a hypothesis. New data is received, hypothesis changes. Oil industry throws out propaganda to confuse people so that they don't have to change their business model by starting "grass roots" movements totally funded by big oil to push concepts like "hydrogen fuel" to kill the electric car movement.

I'm sorry, but siding with corporations is not just stupid. It's suicidal. They only exist to generate money... not ensure that humans exist in 100 years to enjoy it.

Edited by MiddleClassCentrist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. Your reference to astrology is ludicrous.
Climate scientists engage in the same process as astrology. Randomly sifting though data until they find something that correlates with their hypothesis. They then gleefully report this completely random correlation as "proof" of their hypothesis while ignoring all of the data that does not support it.
In the past there were mass extinctions. We know this.
When a meteorite slams into the planet. A risk we need to live with.
The ocean has gone stagnant before. We know this.
No we don't. We have guesses developed by looking at rocks. They cannot be proven and they are judged but their ability to fit into popular narrative. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Your reference to astrology is ludicrous. Why are you buying into the big corporate agenda of "prevent change so our business models need not incur the cost of change"?

In the past there were mass extinctions. We know this.

The ocean has gone stagnant before. We know this.

If the ocean goes stagnant, hydrogen sulphide producing bacteria grow rampantly. FYI - Hydrogen Sulphide is toxic.

We are having an impact that could cause a mass extinction... we need to change what we are doing.

Wtf is this? :lol:

Is this the new scientific method? Haha come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But yes, that group of scientists trying to save the planet making paltry salaries compared to most people in the oil industry. THEY ARE THE ONES WITH THE TRUE CONSPIRACY.
Yawn. A scientist fearing the loss of the only job they have is more dangerous than an oil company with billions because the people like you seem to think that scientists are not corruptible. They are. They need to protect their livelihood and if exaggeration is what is needed to get enough attention to get the next grant they will exaggerate.
Scientists are peer reviewed and based on stats/data collection against a hypothesis.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Climate science is notorious for inventing 'novel' statistical methods because the methods used by everyone else do not give them the answer they want. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate scientists engage in the same process. Randomly sifting though data until they find something that correlates with their hypothesis. They then gleefully report this completely random correlation as "proof" of their hypothesis while ignoring all of the data that does not support it.

When a meteorite slams into the planet. A risk we need to live with.

No we don't. We have guesses developed by looking at rocks. They cannot be proven and they are judged but their ability to fit into popular narrative.

You know it can be proven by using simple statistics and math, right?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html

The research by a man often called the "godfather of global warming" says that, from the 1950s through the 1980s, the likelihood of such sweltering temperatures occurring was rarer than 1 in 300. Now, the odds are closer to 1 in 10, according to the study by James Hansen. The NASA scientist says that statistically, what's happening is not random or normal, but pure and simple climate change.

...

Simple mathematics

The new research makes the case for the severity of global warming in a different way than most scientific studies and uses simple mathematics instead of relying on complex climate models or an understanding of atmospheric physics. It also doesn't bother with the usual caveats about individual weather events having numerous causes.

Translation: The general right wing nut is too stupid to not buy into the corporate propaganda that targets any potential flaw to question the entire process. So we'll use simple math to do it instead. *Counts number of hot days per year over last century*, *counts dry spells over last century by year* result -> "see dimwits... it's right there!" I don't know why they bother because the willfully ignorant will just pull the "You made up those stats/data"

Edited by MiddleClassCentrist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to recognize that the oil industry still has over $100,000,000,000,000 of oil money left to work on based on today's price of oil and "proven reserves".

But yes, that group of scientists trying to save the planet making paltry salaries compared to most people in the oil industry. THEY ARE THE ONES WITH THE TRUE CONSPIRACY.

Do you under stand how ludicrous your stance sounds? Scientists are peer reviewed and based on stats/data collection against a hypothesis. New data is received, hypothesis changes. Oil industry throws out propaganda to confuse people so that they don't have to change their business model by starting "grass roots" movements totally funded by big oil to push concepts like "hydrogen fuel" to kill the electric car movement.

I'm sorry, but siding with corporations is not just stupid. It's suicidal. They only exist to generate money... not ensure that humans exist in 100 years to enjoy it.

Corporations are controlled by people, just like scientists are people. They are both susceptible to greed.

People with money don't want the world to end. You think the executives and large shareholders at oil companies just want to sniff cocaine and party until the world is destroyed? These people have children too. No offence, but you just sound crazy talking about the world ending in 100 years because of evil corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know it can be proven by using simple statistics and math
You do realize that those same statistics show that the odds of a major cold snap have gone down by an equal amount? You do realize that a cold snap kills more people than a heat wave? You do realize that an increase in heat events that is combined with a decrease in cold events means there is NO NET CHANGE in extreme events?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, they were completely wrong. Fukishima has been a completely localized problem which is what I said from the start. The radiation danger outside of the immediate area of the plant is non-existent. But you would not have believe that if you listened to the chicken littles during the crisis.

:lol:

timg-

At this point, it is clear the nuclear incident is causing inconvenience for residents in the immediate area. This means it is more serious than I originally expected and it could get worse. However, this inconviences will be temporary - 8 weeks at most and the inconviences are nothing compared to life living in an economy depended on the wind and the sun.

8 weeks :rolleyes: estimates are 20-30 years...80k people displaced by temporary inconveniences :lol: ...

ya tim the nuclear expert now you know more about CC than climatologists, climatology is the equivalence of astrology :lol: ...seeing how good your temporary (8-week projection)inconvenience projection turned out we needn't put much faith into your latest expert opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha that sounds similar to your claims about exaggeration in regards to a nuclear meltdown in Fukishima, the experts and leftist activists were wrong you claimed...but they weren't, you were...

Hell, even the CIA has now admitted that those opposed to the Iraq War were in fact correct. :)

(Yes, you read that correctly. It's about time the Iraq War lunatics admitted this basic fact! )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that those same statistics show that the odds of a major cold snap have gone down by an equal amount? You do realize that a cold snap kills more people than a heat wave? You do realize that an increase in heat events that is combined with a decrease in cold events means there is NO NET CHANGE in extreme events?

But crops can't grow without water, and do poorly in extreme heat.

Tipping the scale to either extreme, hot or cold, does not help us.

Edited by MiddleClassCentrist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ya tim the nuclear expert now you know more about CC than climatologists, climatology is the equivalence of astrology
The so called 'nuclear experts' spouting at the time had no information to base their opinions. At the time, they were no different than astrologers.

The event did end up being more severe than I expected but at the time alarmists were claiming an event worse than Chernobyl with global implications - an outcome that never occurred. In fact, the total radiation releases from Fukushima were 5 times less and the exclusion area is less than half the size when compared to Chernobyl despite the fact that 8 times the fuel was involved.

There is a parallel to the CAGW debate it is that the alarmists were wrong - the world did not end. A disaster happened. Cleanup has started and the Japan has moved on. This is what I say about AGW - it is happening - people will adapt and life will go on. The panic among alarmists is completely unjustified.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's simple science, if you change the concentration of a mixture the mixture's properties MUSTchange, it can do nothing else...co2 is a GHG there is no debate about that NONE, increase the amount of CO2 to the mixture(atmosphere) and the earth must warm, it can do nothing else...the only questions left to be asked is how warm will it get and how quickly it will occur...

Then why is there no ideas or proposals to encourage plankton (the Earths greatest consumer of CO2) growth?

In fact the best way to eliminate CO2 has always been to encourage the growth of CO2 consumers.Other than the obvious totally eliminating the use of fossil fuels.

When obvious solutions are avoided then somethings up.

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×