kallend 2,135
kallend 2,135
rushmc*********You understand that science progresses, right?
I could take your post and substitute Newtonian physics (settled science) and general relativity (new science) for ozone depletion and atmosperic CO2 and you'd sound ridiculous.
Lookee here
another perfect example of the arrogance of the believers
disgusting at best
It's the deniers who are arrogant enough to believe they have a case:
In 2012, National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell investigated peer-reviewed literature published about climate change and found that out of 13,950 articles, 13,926 supported the reality of global warming. Despite a lot of sound and fury from the denial machine, deniers have not really been able to come up with a coherent argument against a consensus. The same is true for a somewhat different study that showed a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists supporting both the reality of global warming and the fact that human emissions are behind it.
Powell recently finished another such investigation, this time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!
One. Yes, one.
Please post the link to this quote
Here's the original:
http://www.jamespowell.org/
Bio: http://www.jamespowell.org/Shortbio/Shortbio.html
He appears to be a bona fide geoscientist, as opposed to a lawyer or shill for an energy company.
Appointed by a pair of REPUBLICAN presidents to the National Science Board.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
brenthutch 444
How many claimed that Human factors were the PRIMARY AND STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT cause of global warming?
billvon 3,096
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Alarmists have computer models, projections, and peer-reviewed research.
>Deniers have observational data.
Alarmists have poorly supported conjectures about the various apocali that will befall us if climate change isn't stopped RIGHT NOW!
Deniers have FOX News reports about how Al Gore is stealing money out of the pockets of the poor of America, and spitting on the downtrodden Exxon executives just trying to support their families.
Scientists have computer models, projections, peer-reviewed research and observational data.
>Observations are proving to be most troublesome.
What was the hottest year observed on record?
>Deniers have observational data.
Alarmists have poorly supported conjectures about the various apocali that will befall us if climate change isn't stopped RIGHT NOW!
Deniers have FOX News reports about how Al Gore is stealing money out of the pockets of the poor of America, and spitting on the downtrodden Exxon executives just trying to support their families.
Scientists have computer models, projections, peer-reviewed research and observational data.
>Observations are proving to be most troublesome.
What was the hottest year observed on record?
billvon 3,096
>How many claimed that Human factors were the PRIMARY AND STATISTICALLY
>SIGNIFICANT cause of global warming?
3893.
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
>SIGNIFICANT cause of global warming?
3893.
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
brenthutch 444
Perhaps I was not clear. Let me rephrase. How many claimed that human factors were the primary and statistically significant (meaning that human influence is not overwhelmed by natural variability) cause of global warming?
davjohns 1
I think Jerry's point is:
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
If the predictions from the theory do not come to pass and the observable data is in contrast with the theory, one has to question the theory.
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
If the predictions from the theory do not come to pass and the observable data is in contrast with the theory, one has to question the theory.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
kallend 2,135
davjohnsI think Jerry's point is:
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
If the predictions from the theory do not come to pass and the observable data is in contrast with the theory, one has to question the theory.
You need to read some more about chaotic systems.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,135
Meanwhile, in the southern hemisphere:
www.thestar.com/sports/tennis/2014/01/15/australian_open_brutal_heat_wave_with_44_c_forecast_for_thursday.html
www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/054961a8-7de5-11e3-95dd-00144feabdc0.html
www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/another-heat-wave-for-buenos-a/22113203
www.thestar.com/sports/tennis/2014/01/15/australian_open_brutal_heat_wave_with_44_c_forecast_for_thursday.html
www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/054961a8-7de5-11e3-95dd-00144feabdc0.html
www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/another-heat-wave-for-buenos-a/22113203
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
[Reply]You need to read some more about chaotic systems.
You need to recognize the difference between a "chaotic system" and a system with some "chaotic components."
Weather is chaotic, so chaos kills weather forecasts more than two weeks away. Climate is not so chaotic. While I have found no peer-reviewed literature on this subject in any of the top journals (which means that you may throw this thought out unless I find a peer-reviewed scientific study demonstrating this to be the case), I can be confident that weather in January, 2050 in Chicago will be snowier than in July, 2050. (Again, this is not peer-reviewed, so you can of course call utter bullshit on the non-peer reviewed basis of this statement, but my position is that there is a lot of non-peer reviewed historical observation to support this viewpoint. There may be peer-reviewed literature out there that shows that Chicago is often snowier in July than in January). I suggest that, actually, e don't even need a model to work out that winter is colder than summer.
I opine that this indicates that climate is not a chaotic system, but has chaotic components. Climate modelers agree - there's a lot less variable in climate forecasting. It's easier, they say, than weather forecasting because the chaos balances out and forcings can be seen.
Climate alarmism is actually dependent upon a rebuke of chaos theory. In a chaotic system and in a system with chaotic components, one would expect to see a very wide variety of conditions. Thus, chaos theory accepts that we may naturally have a 2005 hurricane season and a 2013 hurricane season. Both extremes fit with chaos.
But climate alarmism requires the belief that everything is in stasis and only anthropogenic factors create havoc. This is why every weather event is blamed on AGW. They have little problem attributing a drought/flood, tornado/lack of tornadoes, hurricanes/lack of hurricanes, blizzard/lack of snow to AGW. Climate denial requires a belief that climate is a chaotic system.
I diagree with you that climate is a "chaotic system." I disagree with alarmists that climate is stable and without chaos. I believe that climate is a system with chaotic components.
Note: this is not peer reviewed but own personal belief.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
What's the difference between alarmists and deniers?
Alarmists have computer models, projections, and peer-reviewed research.
Deniers have observational data.
The two are in disagreement. Alarmists had peer-reviewed research and computer models predicting more numerous and more powerful and more destructive hurricanes, tornadoes and fires terrorizing us all. This last year alone tied the record low for landfalling hurricanes in the US (none), tornadoes (first time fewer than 1k tornadoes in US since reporting began) and 4th lowest in fires, etc. Go back a few years ago when hurricanes were more numerous. A couple of really bad years were attributed to climate change. Then it stopped.
Observations are proving to be most troublesome. And recall that "science" is not an end truth but a process. The scientific process requires observational data to confirm the hypothesis.
Observations are not looking good. They aren't. That implicates science, duddennitt?
Except, of course, the deniers don't publish in peer reviewed journals like actual climate scientists. So their interpretation of observational data has NO control over interntional or unintentional bias, or even outright deception.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.