Climate Scientists are Laughing at You

[Crick]

If only you also used your brain...

 

[jc456]

If only you also used your brain...

Why wouldn’t I. I know more than you obviously. I know the difference between observation and models!

 

[SSDD]

If only you also used your brain...

Why wouldn’t I. I know more than you obviously. I know the difference between observation and models!

I am surprised that one of them hasn't started a thread about how the "knowledge" that man is causing climate change has reached 5 sigma status.....for all the hoopla and bluster over "certainty", all the paper says is that the satellite record shows some warming...it doesn't say how much warming..but some warming and that the MODELS can only explain the warming by assuming that CO2 is responsible since they can't reproduce natural variability on decadal time scales...

Same old stuff that we knew all along...repackaged with a bright new 5 sigma logo....it is all smoke and mirrors all the time with these people...I can only hope that one day they are made to pay for their fraud...

 

[Crick]

UPDATE 1-Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard' - scientists | Agricultural Commodities | Reuters

OSLO, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.

“Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.
*****************************************************************************
What YOU think of this doesn't mean shit.

TROLL

 

[SSDD]

UPDATE 1-Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard' - scientists | Agricultural Commodities | Reuters

OSLO, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.

“Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.
*****************************************************************************
What YOU think of this doesn't mean shit.

TROLL

And you have been fooled yet again...all that paper says is that the satellite record shows some warming...it doesn't say how much warming..but it shows some warming and the only explanation that THE MODELS have for that warming is CO2...and the reason they jump straight to CO2 is that they can't model natural variability over decadal scales.....all that they are saying is the only way the models are able to explain the warming is that it must be CO2...they are not saying that there is no other rational explanation...only that the models can explain it in no other way...

Once again...model output being presented as actual evidence...and in this case, the limitations of the model...the fact that they are unable to model natural variability over decadal scales is being presented as reason to believe them...

Is there any low level of pseudoscience regarding the climate that won't fool you? Any level at all? Can you imagine climate science saying anything so stupid that you might think to yourself "wait a minute....that doesn't make any sense?" You are a top shelf dupe....

 

[Crick]

The history of the planet's temperature is NOT the product of a model

Fucking

TROLL

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

5:00 mark says it all. "BURN THE HERETIC!"

 

[Crick]

So, I should reject the opinions of tens of thousands of climate scientists because of the views of John Stossel and a retiree of some sort?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

So, I should reject the opinions of tens of thousands of climate scientists because of the views of John Stossel and a retiree of some sort?

You should reject it because THEY LIED TO YOU YOU FOOL.

 

[Crick]

I find it extremely more likely that John Stossel and the old fart are wrong than are tens of thousands of climate scientists. You should too. Otherwise, you're pushing the edge of the sanity envelope.

 

[SSDD]

The history of the planet's temperature is NOT the product of a model

Fucking

TROLL

We are only talking about the satellite record you moron...

 

[SSDD]

I find it extremely more likely that John Stossel and the old fart are wrong than are tens of thousands of climate scientists. You should too. Otherwise, you're pushing the edge of the sanity envelope.

There aren't tens of thousands of climate scientists....there are perhaps thousands...but hey, you are always pulling claims out of your ass...and if you ask them if they think climate change represents a real danger...less than half say yes...

 

[Crick]

If there were ten of them, I would give them orderS of magnitude more reliance than Mr Stossel.

 

[Crick]

The standard model of the universe held that it was expanding and that expansion would continue forever in an asymptotic fashion - a result of the universe possessing critical density... of being flat. The universe's expansion remaining from the Big Bang, would continue forever, but at a slower and slower and slower rate.

But then there was quite a surprise. Astronomers had been collecting luminosity vs distance data for Type 1A supernova. They are binary systems in which one of the stars is a white dwarf that is sucking matter from its larger mate. When a certain, fixed amount of matter is drawn off to the dward, it explodes in what is essentially a very large fusion explosion. Since this always occurs with the same amount of matter, the explosions have a fixed energy output and thus they serve as "standard candles". They can be used to accurately measure the expansion of the universe. They were being studied simply to get a better idea of the rate of expansion but what was found was that about nine billion years ago, the expansion of the universe began to accelerate. At the time there was no known cause for such a thing yet here was the observation. The observation was repeated by second group, then a third. That was all it took. The observations were indisputable and what they meant was well understood. In less than a year, the majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and everyone else in that line of work had accepted that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. It was a classic paradigm shift. There were no laboratory experiments. There were no predictions. There were only observations and the calculations made from those observations.

The contention you see flailed around here, that scientists are too fixated on their current theories to give a fair listen to alternate explanations, is simply false.

 

[SSDD]

The standard model of the universe held that it was expanding and that expansion would continue forever in an asymptotic fashion - a result of the universe possessing critical density... of being flat. The universe's expansion remaining from the Big Bang, would continue forever, but at a slower and slower and slower rate.

But then there was quite a surprise. Astronomers had been collecting luminosity vs distance data for Type 1A supernova. They are binary systems in which one of the stars is a white dwarf that is sucking matter from its larger mate. When a certain, fixed amount of matter is drawn off to the dward, it explodes in what is essentially a very large fusion explosion. Since this always occurs with the same amount of matter, the explosions have a fixed energy output and thus they serve as "standard candles". They can be used to accurately measure the expansion of the universe. They were being studied simply to get a better idea of the rate of expansion but what was found was that about nine billion years ago, the expansion of the universe began to accelerate. At the time there was no known cause for such a thing yet here was the observation. The observation was repeated by second group, then a third. That was all it took. The observations were indisputable and what they meant was well understood. In less than a year, the majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and everyone else in that line of work had accepted that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. It was a classic paradigm shift. There were no laboratory experiments. There were no predictions. There were only observations and the calculations made from those observations.

The contention you see flailed around here, that scientists are too fixated on their current theories to give a fair listen to alternate explanations, is simply false.

And what are the political policy ramifications of acknowledging that they were wrong? Answer is zero...climate science has become pseudoscientific due to the fact that politics has corrupted it...the ramifications of them admitting at this late date that they were wrong would be catastrophic for both the field of science, and the left as a general political body...the kick back would go on for a generation...

 

[Crick]

The ramifications of assuming, despite mountains of evidence and nearly universal expert opinion, that they were wrong... THAT would be catastrophic. The reason there was zero cost for astronomers admitting that they'd been wrong was that 1) they had ALL been wrong and 2) it was NEW observations that drove the change.

SSDD is a TROLL

 

[SSDD]

The ramifications of assuming, despite mountains of evidence and nearly universal expert opinion, that they were wrong... THAT would be catastrophic. The reason there was zero cost for astronomers admitting that they'd been wrong was that 1) they had ALL been wrong and 2) it was NEW observations that drove the change.

SSDD is a TROLL

If there were mountains of evidence, you might have a point....but you can't even produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and that is in, and of itself, evidence that climate science has become political pseudoscience...

 

[Crick]

I can present 1800 pages of evidence.

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch

TROLL

 

[jc456]

I find it extremely more likely that John Stossel and the old fart are wrong than are tens of thousands of climate scientists. You should too. Otherwise, you're pushing the edge of the sanity envelope.

you truly enjoy exaggeration don't you. I want to know if you have a list that shows tens of thousands. I want to see it. you make the claim prove it. punk!!!!

 

[jc456]

Crick

If there were ten of them, I would give them orderS of magnitude more reliance than Mr Stossel.

so now it's only ten? interesting.