Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?

[expat_panama]

Editorial IBD (Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?) 2/24/2017

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis...


...two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests." This isn't just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced...


...to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science...


...a government paper that called into question the 18-year "pause" in global warming was based on "experimental" data and politicized. That "paper" was used to justify President Obama's signing of the Paris climate agreement...


...University physicist Will Happer told the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian earlier this week: "There's a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult. ...

...Real science has nothing to fear from more openness and discussion, but everything to fear from more politicized dishonesty.​

=====

There are folks that say "I don't believe in a god, I believe in science". The problem w/ that is the fact that while science is an excellent method of inquiry it's horrible when it's turned into a belief system. This is becuase it's easier for folks to forget the substance of science (observation and analysis) and replace it w/ the form of science (guys w/ white coats and thick books pompously strutting). Personally, I vote against using my tax dollars to supplant the substance w/ the form.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Editorial IBD (Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?) 2/24/2017

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis...


...two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests." This isn't just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced...


...to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science...


...a government paper that called into question the 18-year "pause" in global warming was based on "experimental" data and politicized. That "paper" was used to justify President Obama's signing of the Paris climate agreement...


...University physicist Will Happer told the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian earlier this week: "There's a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult. ...

...Real science has nothing to fear from more openness and discussion, but everything to fear from more politicized dishonesty.​

=====

There are folks that say "I don't believe in a god, I believe in science". The problem w/ that is the fact that while science is an excellent method of inquiry it's horrible when it's turned into a belief system. This is becuase it's easier for folks to forget the substance of science (observation and analysis) and replace it w/ the form of science (guys w/ white coats and thick books pompously strutting). Personally, I vote against using my tax dollars to supplant the substance w/ the form.

Climate change has been going on since the planet was created. FACT..
10,000 years ago, the Earth was in a warming trend that melted the ice caps, there was no industrial revolution during that time. What caused that warming? FACT...
Back in 1976 the Earth was cooling to the point that by 1977 "scientists" thought that the Earth was going into a new ice age, and the liberals if you gave them money would save US. There was no ice age. FACT....
In 2000, Al Jazeera Gore, created an inconvenient Lie, where many people paid good money to be bullshitted about global warming which was going to burn the Earth up by 2010, which didn't happen. FACT.....
2012, 2 years after the Earth was "SUPPOSED" to be gone, the left changes the terminology to climate change, because that way they couldn't be locked in to extreme warmth or extreme cooling, just dupe the people, so they could steal more of the stupid people's money. Here we are today... FACT....

 

[Old Rocks]

****. That particular paper was referring to social sciences. And the science, physics of absorption spectra of GHG gasses was established in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. Svante Arrhenius did the first quantitative analysis of the results of that in 1896. The prediction was that if you increased the GHGs in the atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere would increase. And it has.

One of the bugaboos of the denialists is the Mann graph. Yet other researchers have used different proxies, and even somewhat different stastitical methods, and came up with the same graph.

Climate science is on as solid of a surface as evolution.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

****. That particular paper was referring to social sciences. And the science, physics of absorption spectra of GHG gasses was established in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. Svante Arrhenius did the first quantitative analysis of the results of that in 1896. The prediction was that if you increased the GHGs in the atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere would increase. And it has.

One of the bugaboos of the denialists is the Mann graph. Yet other researchers have used different proxies, and even somewhat different stastitical methods, and came up with the same graph.

Climate science is on as solid of a surface as evolution.

But what your bullshit science consensus fails to leave out, is that the green plants on the Earth take in those Green House Gases, and provides breathable Oxygen that animal life thrives on. Your science is junk, because it ever increases, even when plant life increases.

The Fanatical Liberal Leftwing GCC Zelots, are religiously denying their own lives, to the point that it would be better to self destruct than "THINK" they are ruining the planet.

 

[expat_panama]

http://ungb.org/freepix/****.png
Sorry you're having such a bad time in that direction, we'd be glad to give you a few pointers if you're interested but it'd be better to do that on a different forum thread. Let's stick to the AGW topic on this thread.

 

[RollingThunder]

Editorial IBD (Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?) 2/24/2017

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled."....​

....and it is "settled science", very much so! Only denier cult dingbats could possibly be so unhinged as to imagine that an unsigned editorial in a non-science magazine called 'Investors Business Daily' is somehow refuting the last 50 years of climate science.

In the real world....

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) [the world’s largest association of Earth scientists, with over 62,000 members from 144 countries.] adopted a statement on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases in 1998.[60] A new statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[61] and revised and expanded in 2013,[62] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

"Human activities are changing Earth's climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."
***

In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

"Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty first century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[68]"
***

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[73]"

 

[expat_panama]

Editorial IBD (Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?) 2/24/2017

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled."....​

....and it is "settled science", very much so! ... ...The American Geophysical Union (AGU) [the world’s largest association of Earth scientists, with over 62,000 members from 144 countries.] adopted a statement... ...Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming... ...dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities... ....policy discussions should... ...adapt to and mitigate climate change

Sounds great!

You've presented a quote from a prestigious group that says you're right, and presumably your objective is proving me wrong so I'll say "you've just straightened me out on how badly the globe's getting warmer". Now, I personally doubt that you'd say I was right if I were to post a statement from other prestigious group that said the globe was just fine --and the reason is that we both know full well that science is not what prestigious people say but rather what our experiments show.

OK so these guys are supposed to always agree w/ the evidence but sometimes one group does and some other group doesn't. No problem. Let's you and I just look at the experimental evidence ourselves right here. Please show:

1. the hard numbers proving how much the the temp of the biosphere's gone up since 1967,
2. that it's the kind of rise has never happened before in recorded history w/o causing so much harm that we want to spend $trillions,
3. what the proof is that people did it.
4. and show what we could possibly hope to accomplish by spending $trillions to stop it.

Show me the experimental evidence of all four ideas and I'll join your call to action. Until then let's understand that there's no evidence shown here.

 

[Old Rocks]

Expat, provide a group as prestigious as the American Geophysical Union that states AGW is not a fact. You cannot because no such organization exists. The denialists as a group are paid shills of the energy companies and braindead uneducated rednecks.

 

[edthecynic]

IBD = Fake News

 

[Old Rocks]

http://ungb.org/freepix/****.png
Sorry you're having such a bad time in that direction, we'd be glad to give you a few pointers if you're interested but it'd be better to do that on a different forum thread. Let's stick to the AGW topic on this thread.

Don't like the way I talk? LOL 50 + years of working sawmills, construction, and steel mills taught me to communicate in terms the people I am addressing can understand. And if this old millwright can take the time to research a scientific subject, anyone else can.

Now you have the biggest library in the world at your finger tips. Use it, and provide credible sources for what you consider your points. Sources like this;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

****. That particular paper was referring to social sciences. And the science, physics of absorption spectra of GHG gasses was established in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. Svante Arrhenius did the first quantitative analysis of the results of that in 1896. The prediction was that if you increased the GHGs in the atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere would increase. And it has.

One of the bugaboos of the denialists is the Mann graph. Yet other researchers have used different proxies, and even somewhat different stastitical methods, and came up with the same graph.

Climate science is on as solid of a surface as evolution.

But what your bullshit science consensus fails to leave out, is that the green plants on the Earth take in those Green House Gases, and provides breathable Oxygen that animal life thrives on. Your science is junk, because it ever increases, even when plant life increases.

The Fanatical Liberal Leftwing GCC Zelots, are religiously denying their own lives, to the point that it would be better to self destruct than "THINK" they are ruining the planet.

What a ******* idiot you are. The problem is the rapid increase in GHGs, which creates a very rapid increase in heat. That increase is rapidly reducing the cryosphere, and changing climate patterns our agriculture is dependent on.

 

[expat_panama]

...Climate science is on as solid of a surface as evolution.

...you have the biggest library in the world at your finger tips. Use it...

We're in 100% agreement that climate science is good thing, but what the article is talking about is that some people say that there's evidence that AGW's bad but there've been problems w/ the data's reliability.

Before we spend money we need a reason, and so far nobody's presented reproducable scientific data that:

1. there are hard numbers proving how much the the temp of the biosphere's gone up since say, 50 years ago,
2. it's the kind of rise has never happened before in recorded history w/o causing so much harm that we want to spend $trillions,
3. people did it.
4. we could possibly stop it by spending $trillions to stop it.

Believe me, I've looked and I haven't seen it and I'm not willing spend my money until I do see it. However, if you'd show me the independently reproducible experimental evidence of all four ideas then I'll donate. I promise. Until then let's understand that there's been no evidence shown here and we can keep our wallets in our pockets.

 

[yiostheoy]

Editorial IBD (Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?) 2/24/2017

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled."....​

....and it is "settled science", very much so! ... ...The American Geophysical Union (AGU) [the world’s largest association of Earth scientists, with over 62,000 members from 144 countries.] adopted a statement... ...Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming... ...dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities... ....policy discussions should... ...adapt to and mitigate climate change

Sounds great!

You've presented a quote from a prestigious group that says you're right, and presumably your objective is proving me wrong so I'll say "you've just straightened me out on how badly the globe's getting warmer". Now, I personally doubt that you'd say I was right if I were to post a statement from other prestigious group that said the globe was just fine --and the reason is that we both know full well that science is not what prestigious people say but rather what our experiments show.

OK so these guys are supposed to always agree w/ the evidence but sometimes one group does and some other group doesn't. No problem. Let's you and I just look at the experimental evidence ourselves right here. Please show:

1. the hard numbers proving how much the the temp of the biosphere's gone up since 1967,
2. that it's the kind of rise has never happened before in recorded history w/o causing so much harm that we want to spend $trillions,
3. what the proof is that people did it.
4. and show what we could possibly hope to accomplish by spending $trillions to stop it.

Show me the experimental evidence of all four ideas and I'll join your call to action. Until then let's understand that there's no evidence shown here.

The global warming phenomenon is a data point that has been observed and measured.

WHAT IS CAUSING IT is presently still unknown.

WHETHER ANTS AND HUMANS can change it is doubtful.

Termites probably have more control over global warming than any other living creature on this Earth including mankind. But the termites are not going to stop eating wood anytime soon.

 

[RollingThunder]

Editorial IBD (Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?) 2/24/2017

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled."....​

....and it is "settled science", very much so! ... ...The American Geophysical Union (AGU) [the world’s largest association of Earth scientists, with over 62,000 members from 144 countries.] adopted a statement... ...Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming... ...dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities... ....policy discussions should... ...adapt to and mitigate climate change

Sounds great!

You've presented a quote from a prestigious group that says you're right, and presumably your objective is proving me wrong so I'll say "you've just straightened me out on how badly the globe's getting warmer". Now, I personally doubt that you'd say I was right if I were to post a statement from other prestigious group that said the globe was just fine -- and the reason is that....

....there aren't any such "groups", or scientific organizations, anywhere on Earth, that deny the rather dire conclusions of the climate scientists about human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes.

In the real world....

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
• Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
• The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
• The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global changedrivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13]which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

[RollingThunder]

The global warming phenomenon is a data point that has been observed and measured.

WHAT IS CAUSING IT is presently still unknown.

Perhaps in the deep dark depths of denier cult insanity, some retards still moronically believe that scientists are clueless about the causes of global warming....but in the real world, your statement is complete bullshit!

See post #6 for proof.

 

[SSDD]

The global warming phenomenon is a data point that has been observed and measured.

WHAT IS CAUSING IT is presently still unknown.

Perhaps in the deep dark depths of denier cult insanity, some retards still moronically believe that scientists are clueless about the causes of global warming....but in the real world, your statement is complete bullshit!

See post #6 for proof.

Hey thunder...have you sought out any help for that condition that leaves you intimidated and threatened by anyone who disagrees with you yet?...still unable to have anything like a normal relationship with anyone because no one will agree with you all the time?

 

[ScienceRocks]

http://ungb.org/freepix/****.png
Sorry you're having such a bad time in that direction, we'd be glad to give you a few pointers if you're interested but it'd be better to do that on a different forum thread. Let's stick to the AGW topic on this thread.

**** you. You're the one that isn't following the topic of this thread as you're posting unsupported bullshit from frauds and anti-science scum. Stick with real science or

 

[RollingThunder]

The global warming phenomenon is a data point that has been observed and measured.

WHAT IS CAUSING IT is presently still unknown.

Perhaps in the deep dark depths of denier cult insanity, some retards still moronically believe that scientists are clueless about the causes of global warming....but in the real world, your statement is complete bullshit!

See post #6 for proof.

Hey thunder...have you sought out any help for that condition that leaves you intimidated and threatened by anyone who disagrees with you yet?...still unable to have anything like a normal relationship with anyone because no one will agree with you all the time?

Hey, SoDumb....have you sought out any help for that condition that causes you to deny reality and science for the sake of your crackpot political and economic ideologies? "So sad".

 

[ScienceRocks]

El calentamiento global es verdadero periodo
si no
jódete

 

[expat_panama]

....and it is "settled science", very much so! ... ...The American Geophysical Union (AGU) [the world’s largest association of Earth scientists, with over 62,000 members from 144 countries.] adopted a statement... ...Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming... ...dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities... ....policy discussions should... ...adapt to and mitigate climate change

Let's you and I just look at the experimental evidence ourselves right here. Please show:the hard numbers proving how much the the temp of the biosphere's gone up since 1967,

....Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]

--and the link goes to

showing almost a half degree increase. No data, no readings, so the number's still a bit controversial. Just the same we got NOAA ice-core numbers that are similar: .

and agree w/ the 1/2 recent increase. The problem is w/ the second proof we were looking for:

that it's the kind of rise has never happened before in recorded history w/o causing so much harm that we want to spend $trillions,

The evidence you're sharing shows an increase that's pretty small potatoes compared to what we had before. We also need to know---

what the proof is that people did it.

and you shared--

....Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]

That would mean that my willingness to ever pay money for this will have to be merely "very likely".

Pse see what we're up against here. We're looking at a lousy 1/2 degree increase (much smaller than what's often come before) that we can only guess is "very likely" caused by people, this is hardly what we'd want to pay big bux for.