Do Global warming evangelicals realize scientists can't explain climate change is....

[healthmyths]

"Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change"

WHY the skepticism by scientists now???

"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.
Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown | Reuters

See how far ahead of the curve conservatives are?
I mean you "progressives" are still in the 1970s memes.. global warming,etc...
While we conservatives were trying to get you hysterical glaciers will all melt hyperbole idiots to look at the facts and not the generalities!

For example NOT one of you "global warming" evangelicals have yet answered why a simple data gathering technique .. temperature reading stations and
the base point for the "global warming" data excluded 12.5% of the land mass? By discounting this 12.5% of the total land mass the average temperature
reading stations were skewed towards higher average!

That's just one of the many reasons common sense people are very skeptical of the Chicken Little.. "waterworld advocates"!

 

[tjvh]

The AGW nuts keep telling us that you cannot fault science, yet it's scientists who are questioning their own data. When someone can tell me how the Earth had an Ice Age and that it was all the fault of humans, only then will I give man's role in climate change slightly more thought.

 

[Glensather]

Um. It's not "global warming". It's climate change. Global warming implies that the world slowly continues to heat up.

The truth is closer to having more extreme weather, hot or cold, rain or dry.

I mean, the East Coast was battered with snow. In March.
It was also 70 degrees here... in January. It hasn't truly felt like Spring except for the past few days.

These things occurring aren't unique, but they are occurring with more frequency.

I don't claim that scientists know all the answers (that's why most things are Theories, not Laws, because all science is subject to change with new data), but I do believe that the Earth's climate is growing wonky.

(BTW, not to add fuel to the fire, but the reduction of greenhouse gases to prevent climate change has led to the ozone layer patching itself back up.)

 

[konradv]

"Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change"

WHY the skepticism by scientists now???

"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.
Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown | Reuters

See how far ahead of the curve conservatives are?
I mean you "progressives" are still in the 1970s memes.. global warming,etc...
While we conservatives were trying to get you hysterical glaciers will all melt hyperbole idiots to look at the facts and not the generalities!

For example NOT one of you "global warming" evangelicals have yet answered why a simple data gathering technique .. temperature reading stations and
the base point for the "global warming" data excluded 12.5% of the land mass? By discounting this 12.5% of the total land mass the average temperature
reading stations were skewed towards higher average!

That's just one of the many reasons common sense people are very skeptical of the Chicken Little.. "waterworld advocates"!

Discounting land mass doesn't necessarily skew readings. It's the distribution that's important, not whether you have every square inch of the globe covered. Besides, with satellite technology we should be getting better data from space than from hard to reach land based stations that can only be visited, serviced and re-calibrated at irregular intervals.

 

[tjvh]

Um. It's not "global warming". It's climate change. Global warming implies that the world slowly continues to heat up.

The truth is closer to having more extreme weather, hot or cold, rain or dry.

I mean, the East Coast was battered with snow. In March.
It was also 70 degrees here... in January. It hasn't truly felt like Spring except for the past few days.

These things occurring aren't unique, but they are occurring with more frequency.

I don't claim that scientists know all the answers (that's why most things are Theories, not Laws, because all science is subject to change with new data), but I do believe that the Earth's climate is growing wonky.

(BTW, not to add fuel to the fire, but the reduction of greenhouse gases to prevent climate change has led to the ozone layer patching itself back up.)

But it was global warming until that label didn't quite mesh with reality.

 

[Glensather]

That was before new data showed that it wasn't just temperatures slowly rising, but also rapidly falling. It turned out that it was more extreme than that.

The past 20 years of climatology have shown scientists a lot more about how the world works than you would believe. That's why it went from Global Warming to Climate Change. When new data is discovered, you shift your paradigm to fit the new data.

I think it's why many people don't like science or dealing with it. Like liquid, it constantly shifts form.

 

[tjvh]

That was before new data showed that it wasn't just temperatures slowly rising, but also rapidly falling. It turned out that it was more extreme than that.

The past 20 years of climatology have shown scientists a lot more about how the world works than you would believe. That's why it went from Global Warming to Climate Change. When new data is discovered, you shift your paradigm to fit the new data.

I think it's why many people don't like science or dealing with it. Like liquid, it constantly shifts form.

But if it was based upon science, how exactly did they get the title of it wrong in the first place?

 

[Glensather]

You're not listening.
It was called Global Warming because that's all that they knew at the time. Science was only focused on temperate going up, no one thought to look at temperature going down as well.

Imagine only getting half the story on anything and you'll understand.

 

[buckeye45_73]

That was before new data showed that it wasn't just temperatures slowly rising, but also rapidly falling. It turned out that it was more extreme than that.

The past 20 years of climatology have shown scientists a lot more about how the world works than you would believe. That's why it went from Global Warming to Climate Change. When new data is discovered, you shift your paradigm to fit the new data.

I think it's why many people don't like science or dealing with it. Like liquid, it constantly shifts form.

Yep it's as much science as the infamous "Studies" that evaluate products and say they are good or bad when it just keeps changing....Does aspirin prenet heart attacks....some say yes, others say no...but to the left it's concrete science.

 

[bripat9643]

That was before new data showed that it wasn't just temperatures slowly rising, but also rapidly falling. It turned out that it was more extreme than that.

The past 20 years of climatology have shown scientists a lot more about how the world works than you would believe. That's why it went from Global Warming to Climate Change. When new data is discovered, you shift your paradigm to fit the new data.

I think it's why many people don't like science or dealing with it. Like liquid, it constantly shifts form.

What you really mean is that when the data doesn't support your hocus-pocus theories, instead of tossing out the theories you just invent excuses as to why the data no longer correlates.

AGW isn't science. It's a con. Aztec priests were intimately familiar with the kind of reasoning employed by their modern counterparts in the field of "climate science."

 

[Glensather]

That was before new data showed that it wasn't just temperatures slowly rising, but also rapidly falling. It turned out that it was more extreme than that.

The past 20 years of climatology have shown scientists a lot more about how the world works than you would believe. That's why it went from Global Warming to Climate Change. When new data is discovered, you shift your paradigm to fit the new data.

I think it's why many people don't like science or dealing with it. Like liquid, it constantly shifts form.

Yep it's as much science as the infamous "Studies" that evaluate products and say they are good or bad when it just keeps changing....Does aspirin prenet heart attacks....some say yes, others say no...but to the left it's concrete science.

That's a mistake far too many people make.
Even scientists will tell you that few things are set in stone (slightly off topic, but one of those things is that, when a White Dwarf absorbs 1.38 times its own mass in weight, it'll go supernova). But everytime they come up with new evidence for something - like, say, Climate Change - you have all these people who take it as Gospel and say "This has to be right because science says so."

Science also used to say there were only 4 elements and the Earth was flat, and then new evidence changed that. Science will stay that way, because like everyone else, scientists learn.

 

[Glensather]

What you really mean is that when the data doesn't support your hocus-pocus theories, instead of tossing out the theories you just invent excuses as to why the data no longer correlates.

AGW isn't science. It's a con. Aztec priests were intimately familiar with the kind of reasoning employed by their modern counterparts in the field of "climate science."

So you're saying that new evidence can't change a theory? Ever? We should stay with the way Aristotle thought the world worked?

 

[Meister]

The only solutions to this Global Warming...I mean Global Climate Change is to have the first world countries pay the UN a lot of money so they can redistribute it to the third world countries.....and probably pay these scientists to continue the "fairy tale", I mean "study" on global climate change.

In the beginning when the IPCC/UN asked to have papers sent on global warming...they cherry picked those papers for their scenario.

 

[Meister]

Um. It's not "global warming". It's climate change. Global warming implies that the world slowly continues to heat up.

The truth is closer to having more extreme weather, hot or cold, rain or dry.

I mean, the East Coast was battered with snow. In March.
It was also 70 degrees here... in January. It hasn't truly felt like Spring except for the past few days.

These things occurring aren't unique, but they are occurring with more frequency.

I don't claim that scientists know all the answers (that's why most things are Theories, not Laws, because all science is subject to change with new data), but I do believe that the Earth's climate is growing wonky.

(BTW, not to add fuel to the fire, but the reduction of greenhouse gases to prevent climate change has led to the ozone layer patching itself back up.)

Climate has always been changing, that's why we've had several ice ages on Earth.
We've also has several warming periods.
It's cyclical.....not Man induced.

 

[bripat9643]

What you really mean is that when the data doesn't support your hocus-pocus theories, instead of tossing out the theories you just invent excuses as to why the data no longer correlates.

AGW isn't science. It's a con. Aztec priests were intimately familiar with the kind of reasoning employed by their modern counterparts in the field of "climate science."

So you're saying that new evidence can't change a theory? Ever? We should stay with the way Aristotle thought the world worked?

If you can't make predictions based on your theory, then your theory is wrong. Geologists used to have a theory that the continents were fixed and immovable. "new evidence" showed that the continents did in fact move over time. Geologists then tossed the old theory on the trash heap.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That was before new data showed that it wasn't just temperatures slowly rising, but also rapidly falling. It turned out that it was more extreme than that.

The past 20 years of climatology have shown scientists a lot more about how the world works than you would believe. That's why it went from Global Warming to Climate Change. When new data is discovered, you shift your paradigm to fit the new data.

I think it's why many people don't like science or dealing with it. Like liquid, it constantly shifts form.

Yep it's as much science as the infamous "Studies" that evaluate products and say they are good or bad when it just keeps changing....Does aspirin prenet heart attacks....some say yes, others say no...but to the left it's concrete science.

That's a mistake far too many people make.
Even scientists will tell you that few things are set in stone (slightly off topic, but one of those things is that, when a White Dwarf absorbs 1.38 times its own mass in weight, it'll go supernova). But everytime they come up with new evidence for something - like, say, Climate Change - you have all these people who take it as Gospel and say "This has to be right because science says so."

Science also used to say there were only 4 elements and the Earth was flat, and then new evidence changed that. Science will stay that way, because like everyone else, scientists learn.

FYI: They knew the Earth was round in Alexanders the greats time and for some unknown reason to me they then thought it was flat.. Your just trying to spin it, So every time scientist come up with a new crack pot theory we are supposed to stop what we are doing and take it as gospil?

 

[francoHFW]

The dupes fighting for the greedy idiot rich, hugely subsidized Big Oil, and polluters....only people in the world doing so...

 

[konradv]

Um. It's not "global warming". It's climate change. Global warming implies that the world slowly continues to heat up.

The truth is closer to having more extreme weather, hot or cold, rain or dry.

I mean, the East Coast was battered with snow. In March.
It was also 70 degrees here... in January. It hasn't truly felt like Spring except for the past few days.

These things occurring aren't unique, but they are occurring with more frequency.

I don't claim that scientists know all the answers (that's why most things are Theories, not Laws, because all science is subject to change with new data), but I do believe that the Earth's climate is growing wonky.

(BTW, not to add fuel to the fire, but the reduction of greenhouse gases to prevent climate change has led to the ozone layer patching itself back up.)

Climate has always been changing, that's why we've had several ice ages on Earth.
We've also has several warming periods.
It's cyclical.....not Man induced.

That's only half the story. You're totally ignoring the time component. Ice Ages involved tens to hundreds of thousands of years. We're talking about the last 200+.

 

[konradv]

What you really mean is that when the data doesn't support your hocus-pocus theories, instead of tossing out the theories you just invent excuses as to why the data no longer correlates.

AGW isn't science. It's a con. Aztec priests were intimately familiar with the kind of reasoning employed by their modern counterparts in the field of "climate science."

So you're saying that new evidence can't change a theory? Ever? We should stay with the way Aristotle thought the world worked?

If you can't make predictions based on your theory, then your theory is wrong. Geologists used to have a theory that the continents were fixed and immovable. "new evidence" showed that the continents did in fact move over time. Geologists then tossed the old theory on the trash heap.

The ability of CO2 to absorb IR radiation isn't theory, however, it's scientific fact.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're saying that new evidence can't change a theory? Ever? We should stay with the way Aristotle thought the world worked?

If you can't make predictions based on your theory, then your theory is wrong. Geologists used to have a theory that the continents were fixed and immovable. "new evidence" showed that the continents did in fact move over time. Geologists then tossed the old theory on the trash heap.

The ability of CO2 to absorb IR radiation isn't theory, however, it's scientific fact.

Spitting into the ocean will make sea level increase. That doesn't mean we have to move our life guard stations further up the beach as a result.