Scientific opposition to climate change

[Saigon]

Ilar -

I totally agree with you - but if I consult 100 doctors, and 97 tell me I have X, then in most cases they are going to be right.

I can't imagine many posters would consult 100 doctors and then dismiss the views of 97 of them as sceptics do here.

I've never understood why sceptics tend to dismiss the idea of scientific consensus - but still insist they are on the side of science. You can't have it both ways - either we value the opinions of scientists or we don't.

We get second opinions for a lot of reasons. Sometimes we get a few more than just two opinions. Sadly, sometimes that means we get LOTS of different opinions. The trouble is, if a majority agree, that is no assurance that they are the ones who have gotten ir right.

It all comes down to the data and the quality of the science. Bad data generally lead to lousy conclusions. But even good data can be applied poorly leading once more to poor conclusions.

That is all correct - but for quality of science, read the start of this thread.

Most sceptical science is absoutely dreadful and very transparent. Unless the world really does need more CO2, of course.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I saw a show on the science channel the other day that involved the prospect of terraforming Mars someday. If we could seed that planet with lots of the kind of algae found in some hot deserts, in theory they would breathe in the CO2 and breathe out some good old useful O2.

But it's too cold there. So, they then thought of making the place warmer. they thought "GLOBAL WARMING!" And the plan involves the possibility of polluting the bejezus out of Mars until it does that greenhouse thing long enough to warm up Mars.

To make Mars livable, therefore, some pretty smart scientists concluded that it DOES need more CO2.

 

[Saigon]

It's funny how Siagon's signature basically says that 97% of the people who's job it is to study climate change, accept that Climate Change exists.

Not, it says that 97% of people whose job it is to study CLIMATE, accept that human acitivity plays a major role in climate change.

And no, investors.com is not a scientific source, genius. It's always good to step back from all of the political bullshit and try a bit of common sense. Common sense will tell you a blog called investors.com is NOT a credible scientific course. NASA probably is.

 

[SSDD]

For example, if the models used by the AGW scientists fail to include the fact that heat loss is more rapid at night, but instead that facet of the data is included in the model as existing in a world that doesn't have days and nights, then the data may be off. And the conclusions may be off.

You don't know the half of it with the models. Climate models today are based on an earth that is a flat disk that does not rotate and is bathed in an endless weak twilight that is 1/4 of the actual incoming solar radiation 24 hours a day.

Using such a model, it is no surprise at all that they not only can't accurately predict future climate, but are unable to accurately represent even the recent past climate.

 

[SSDD]

Most sceptical science is absoutely dreadful and very transparent. Unless the world really does need more CO2, of course.

According to who? skeptical science?....one of the most disreputable climate sites anywhere?

It is climate science itself that is dreadful and shamelessly transparent as has been shown to you repeatedly with tampered temperature records.

 

[SSDD]

I saw a show on the science channel the other day that involved the prospect of terraforming Mars someday. If we could seed that planet with lots of the kind of algae found in some hot deserts, in theory they would breathe in the CO2 and breathe out some good old useful O2.

But it's too cold there. So, they then thought of making the place warmer. they thought "GLOBAL WARMING!" And the plan involves the possibility of polluting the bejezus out of Mars until it does that greenhouse thing long enough to warm up Mars.

To make Mars livable, therefore, some pretty smart scientists concluded that it DOES need more CO2.

Mars isn't cold because it lacks CO2. CO2 is the predominant gas in the martian atmosphere. If the AGW hypothesis were correct, then mars would be warmer than it is by some small amount. The fact is that when mars parameters are plugged into modern climate models, they don't come close to predicting the temperature of mars. In fact, they don't come close to predicting the known temperature of any planet in our solar system that has an atmosphere. That is because they are using terribly flawed physics.

There is a model out there that not only accurately predicts the temperature of earth, but every planet in our solar system that has an atmosphere....of course it doesn't consider CO2 to be a "greenhouse" gas because it doesn't even assume there is a greenhouse effect...which, by the way, there isn't.

That is how shabby climate science is...it based on an effect that doesn't even exist. There has never been a single measurement of the so called greenhouse effect and yet, warmists are prepared to do untold damage to world economies over an effect that has never been measured.

 

[SSDD]

Not, it says that 97% of people whose job it is to study CLIMATE, accept that human acitivity plays a major role in climate change.

Accept based on what proof?

And no, investors.com is not a scientific source, genius.

Neither is skeptical science but you don't seem to have a problem accepting whatever they spoon feed you.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

For example, if the models used by the AGW scientists fail to include the fact that heat loss is more rapid at night, but instead that facet of the data is included in the model as existing in a world that doesn't have days and nights, then the data may be off. And the conclusions may be off.

You don't know the half of it with the models. Climate models today are based on an earth that is a flat disk that does not rotate and is bathed in an endless weak twilight that is 1/4 of the actual incoming solar radiation 24 hours a day.

Using such a model, it is no surprise at all that they not only can't accurately predict future climate, but are unable to accurately represent even the recent past climate.

Interesting. Still can't post U R L's but: if we remove the http:// and then insert some random words we are left with starryskies.com/solar_system/mars/martian_atmosphere.html

That does note the 95% CO2 Martian atmosphere but the 1% of Earth's atmospheric density.

 

[SSDD]

Interesting. Still can't post U R L's but: if we remove the http:// and then insert some random words we are left with starryskies.com/solar_system/mars/martian_atmosphere.html

That does note the 95% CO2 Martian atmosphere but the 1% of Earth's atmospheric density.

Interestingly enough, mars was experiencing "global warming" at the same time as earth and it's warming leveled of and has remained level very much as has our own warming here lending a great deal of weight to the skeptics argument that the sun is what drives our climate....not a trace atmospheric gas.

 

[Oddball]

It's funny how Siagon's signature basically says that 97% of the people who's job it is to study climate change, accept that Climate Change exists.

Not, it says that 97% of people whose job it is to study CLIMATE, accept that human acitivity plays a major role in climate change.

No, it says that 97% of the people who self-selected to answer the self-serving survey believe that hokum.

The POS 97% number has been debunked since about two hours after it was released.

 

[Saigon]

Accept based on what proof?

Based on the proof they see in their work.

The kind of science you refuse to look at, probably.

 

[SSDD]

Accept based on what proof?

Based on the proof they see in their work.

The kind of science you refuse to look at, probably.

You have still not offered up the first shred of proof that trenberth's energy budget is correct. If that budget, and resulting model is wrong, then everything that came after which relies on atmospheric physics is wrong. If the basis of their work is flawed, then their own work is flawed as well. You don't seem to be able to understand this simple fact.


Aside from that, there is no proof in thier work. There are opinions, possibilities, maybe's, mights, and all sorts of qualifiers but no proof...no hard evidence. The vast bulk is based on the output of computer models which, again, rely entirely on the physics described in trenberth's energy budget. If that budget is wrong, then the models are wrong as well and we have all seen how flawed the models are. If that energy budget were correct, then the models would not require constant tweaking.

 

[Oddball]

Accept based on what proof?

Based on the proof they see in their work.

The kind of science you refuse to look at, probably.

You have still not offered up the first shred of proof that trenberth's energy budget is correct. If that budget, and resulting model is wrong, then everything that came after which relies on atmospheric physics is wrong. If the basis of their work is flawed, then their own work is flawed as well. You don't seem to be able to understand this simple fact.

Let's take it from the man himself:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Based on the proof they see in their work.

The kind of science you refuse to look at, probably.

You have still not offered up the first shred of proof that trenberth's energy budget is correct. If that budget, and resulting model is wrong, then everything that came after which relies on atmospheric physics is wrong. If the basis of their work is flawed, then their own work is flawed as well. You don't seem to be able to understand this simple fact.

Let's take it from the man himself:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

If his model does not account for the observable data, then perhaps the problem is with the model or the assumptions upon which his model is premised.

I know. Wild speculation on my part. It's just that sometimes you have to go with a hunch.

 

[Oddball]

You have still not offered up the first shred of proof that trenberth's energy budget is correct. If that budget, and resulting model is wrong, then everything that came after which relies on atmospheric physics is wrong. If the basis of their work is flawed, then their own work is flawed as well. You don't seem to be able to understand this simple fact.

Let's take it from the man himself:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

If his model does not account for the observable data, then perhaps the problem is with the model or the assumptions upon which his model is premised.

I know. Wild speculation on my part. It's just that sometimes you have to go with a hunch.

His model didn't account for a lot of things...Just like the rest of climate pseudo-science.

That's why it's all GIGO.

 

[Saigon]

You have still not offered up the first shred of proof that trenberth's energy budget is correct.

Why should I offer 'proof' of something I've never mentioned on this board?

In all seriousness, SSDD, at times you both the most astonishingly stupid shit.

 

[SSDD]

You have still not offered up the first shred of proof that trenberth's energy budget is correct.

Why should I offer 'proof' of something I've never mentioned on this board?

You have to be without a doubt, one of the shallowest thinkers on the board. You don't seem to be able to see anything beyond the surface...which is why you appear to be so damned stupid.

When you make the claim that climate science is good science, you are making the claim that the early research upon which it is all based is good science, and if it were, absolute proof of its accuracy should be readily available. It isn't because the socalled science which forms the foundations of modern climate science is about as shoddy as it gets.

If you can't defend the foundational underpinnings of a branch of science, then no amount of defending current claims is going to give you any credibility. If the foundational science is flawed, then all that has been built upon it is flawed.

In all seriousness, SSDD, at times you both the most astonishingly stupid shit.

I am afraid that you are the abysmally stupid one here siagon and the sad thing is that you lack the brain power to see it. When asked the most fundamental questions, you fail to grasp how fundamental to your argument they are. You are so shallow as to be pitiful.

 

[Oddball]

It's funny how Siagon's signature basically says that 97% of the people who's job it is to study climate change, accept that Climate Change exists.

Not, it says that 97% of people whose job it is to study CLIMATE, accept that human acitivity plays a major role in climate change.

And no, investors.com is not a scientific source, genius. It's always good to step back from all of the political bullshit and try a bit of common sense. Common sense will tell you a blog called investors.com is NOT a credible scientific course. NASA probably is.

The Nonsensus: 97% to 98% of climate scientists believe in global warming? | JunkScience.com

 

[tjvh]

It's funny how Siagon's signature basically says that 97% of the people who's job it is to study climate change, accept that Climate Change exists.

Not, it says that 97% of people whose job it is to study CLIMATE, accept that human acitivity plays a major role in climate change.

And no, investors.com is not a scientific source, genius. It's always good to step back from all of the political bullshit and try a bit of common sense. Common sense will tell you a blog called investors.com is NOT a credible scientific course. NASA probably is.

The Nonsensus: 97% to 98% of climate scientists believe in global warming? | JunkScience.com

And... The Weakness of the AGW Theory | Climate Change Sanity