What the science says

[Dante]

So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science?

No, but I'm not blind to the political uses of science. Or the political twisting of science.

Very big of you to admit it and validate Dante's point

Dante's point was, "Look at the cool picture, now you have to believe everything I say"

cafeteria style science on display: Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

 

[SSDD]

Having been around for a good long time....I can honestly say that I stopped believing what CLIMATE SCIENCE had to say when...

So you stopped believing in science after the ant-regulation people started attacking the science? Would that not make your belief in science dependent upon ideology and politics?

As I already stated...I am not one of the anti regulation crowd...so I can't speak for them...I stopped believing what climate science had to say when they started making claims, and issuing warnings regarding the climate that they don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support.

If you are able to read for comprehension...then you should grasp that I am basing my disbelief in climate science on their abject lack of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of their claims, warnings, and proclamations. Which part of what I have said would lead you to think that I said anything else?

 

[Dante]

Why not be honest and just admit you don't like the science and you believe regulation is unwarranted? Do this instead of parroting the anti-reg forces, and trying to attack the science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science?

No, but I'm not blind to the political uses of science. Or the political twisting of science.

Very big of you to admit it and validate Dante's point

Dante's point was, "Look at the cool picture, now you have to believe everything I say"

cafeteria style science on display: Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

Why does a Hubble photo make NASA recommendations about fossil fuels somehow correct?

 

[SSDD]

Science changes with new information, unlike religion or faith or anti-regulation agendas.

Of course it does...which leads me to wonder why, when the plethora of predictions that climate science has made over the decades failed to materialize, the hypothesis which was the basis of those claims and predictions was not scrapped and a new hypothesis with better predictive capacity was not put forward.

You still have not answered "WHO" switched. Care to name the people you must have been following all of these years?

Does climate science have a king, or a president who makes proclamations? I've not seen any such individual. In the 70's there were warnings from the climate science establishment...community...academia....whatever you care to call it which did not come to pass...then the claim became one of warming when the temperature ticked up a couple of tenths of a degree.

I believe you decided you didn't like the science after you became convinced it would bring on new regulations. That is an ideologically based view of science

What you believe is irrelevant. I am asking for observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate...since there is no such evidence to be found...anywhere....the reason for my position on the topic is perfectly clear and unavailable. Now, if you could produce the sort of evidence I have been asking for then you could reasonably suspect that my reasons for holding my position were other than those I claim. Care to prove me wrong by producing said evidence?

 

[Dante]

As I already stated...I am not one of the anti regulation crowd...

you can state whatever your heart wants you to. But the facts are you stopped believing in the science when it became an issue of regulation. Throw as many words at it as you can, but the history of the 'debates' over climate change started with anti-regulation $$$ funding opposition science. Some of the same people doing opposition science as shilled for Big Tobacco

Just be honest

 

[Dante]

when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

Why does a Hubble photo make NASA recommendations about fossil fuels somehow correct?

They don't and no one claims they do.

But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA. That is unless you are also more of an expert than NASA scientists on space an cosmology, as much as you are more of an expert than NASA scientists on climate change?

When I say "we believe them because they are NASA" I say this with the knowledge that there claims are fact checked and a consensus is built around their claims

 

[Dante]

Of course it does...which leads me to wonder why, when the plethora of predictions that climate science has made over the decades failed to materialize, the hypothesis which was the basis of those claims and predictions was not scrapped and a new hypothesis with better predictive capacity was not put forward.

You haven't been following your own posts as well as the science. You posted the science first backed theories of colling and later the climate science put forth revised claims (scrapped the old ones) of warming. As the science has changed, you evidently have not.

Your argument is not with the 'cooling' or 'warming' claims, it is with the science. Why? Regulation and financial costs, as you have noted

I was unaware the science made 'predictions.' I always thought the science claimed possible scenarios into the future if nothing was done to address the issues. Now if YOU are talking about individuals who made predictions...you are not arguing about the science, are you?

 

[SSDD]

As I already stated...I am not one of the anti regulation crowd...

you can state whatever your heart wants you to. But the facts are you stopped believing in the science when it became an issue of regulation. Throw as many words at it as you can, but the history of the 'debates' over climate change started with anti-regulation $$$ funding opposition science. Some of the same people doing opposition science as shilled for Big Tobacco

Just be honest

Is it that you are unable to actually argue against my reasons for not believing the climate science community and resulting position and therefore must invent a position to argue against...or can you just not read?

I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science and it is due to a complete lack of observe, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the prevailing hypothesis...if you can't argue against that position...I completely understand why....since there is no counter argument to be made without providing the very observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence I have asked for and it simply does not exist.

 

[Old Rocks]

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed

The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.

Well, I have yet to pay a cent in carbon taxes, and the people spending the money on the windmills are making a profit, and we are all gaining energy from those mills.

Price of Wind Energy Goes Down in Texas

You thought you might never hear it, but wind power is becoming a formidable price competitor with fossil fuels in Texas, and Austin’s public utility is revamping its programs to suit.

In the year 2000, Austin Energy unrolled a program giving consumers the option to fund wind energy development and the city became a recognized leader in energy innovation.

The GreenChoice program let homes and businesses pay slightly more for their power and buy directly from wind farms, hoping to finance and encourage development.

It worked so well that, by 2009, it was in trouble, and the program was scaled back. Texans in Austin and beyond were demanding more wind energy than power lines could carry, and clogged transmission infrastructure sent prices skyrocketing.

When GreenChoice premiered, consumers opting for wind energy could lock into a ten-year fixed price just six cents per kilowatt-hour more than the standard cost at the time. By 2009 the difference had risen to $2.05, due largely to transmission overload.

The revamped program reflects the new reality of wind power in Texas. How much more per kilowatt-hour are GreenChoice customers asked to pay today? Just one cent.

 

[Old Rocks]

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed

The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.

So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science?

No, but I'm not blind to the political uses of science. Or the political twisting of science.

Very big of you to admit it and validate Dante's point

Dante's point was, "Look at the cool picture, now you have to believe everything I say"

cafeteria style science on display: Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

Why does a Hubble photo make NASA recommendations about fossil fuels somehow correct?

The very same science that put that telescope up there has observed the effect of the burning of fossil fuels on the climate. You put 43% more CO2 and 250% more CH4 in the atmosphere, you are going to warm the atmosphere. So it is time use another energy source. One that does not put GHGs into the atmosphere.

 

[Dante]

Is it that you are unable to actually argue against my reasons for not believing the climate science community...

Your reasons for inferring NASA is lying?

 

[SSDD]

You haven't been following your own posts as well as the science. You posted the science first backed theories of colling and later the climate science put forth revised claims (scrapped the old ones) of warming. As the science has changed, you evidently have not.

Actually, you haven't been following....I never said that I believed climate science when they predicted a sharp cooling trend....the science they based those predictions on was clearly flawed...

And no...I have not changed...my positions change, but my fundamental nature has not and does not. I am an evidence based person...show me observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence for a thing and that will be the basis for my position...if the evidence changes, then my position changes with the evidence.

Your argument is not with the 'cooling' or 'warming' claims, it is with the science. Why? Regulation and financial costs, as you have noted

My argument is with the lack of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the hypothesis....sorry you can't argue against that position...no warmer can...so you must invent a position that you feel you can argue against whether it is actually my position or not...typical of warmers.

I was unaware the science made 'predictions.' I always thought the science claimed possible scenarios into the future if nothing was done to address the issues. Now if YOU are talking about individuals who made predictions...you are not arguing about the science, are you?

You apparently are unaware of much.....in fact, predictions are part and parcel of science...Here, let me help you out with the scientific process...

first you develop a hypothesis...a hypothesis is a statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

After you have gathered enough observed, measured, quantified, empirical data....usually via experimentation, to support the hypothesis, it then becomes theory.

A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Climate science has made many predictions about the climate. Beginning with the prediction of cooling...in the 1970s it was predicted that by 1990, the average mean global temperature would be 4 degrees colder than it was at the time and 11 degrees colder by the year 2000.

The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe effected by increasing sea level, hurricanes, and desertifaction as a result of global warming.

I am sure you have heard this one....In March 2000, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

In 2007, 2008, and 2009 predictions were made that the arctic would be ice free by 2013

Then there were the predictions that warming would cause massive melting of antarctic ice which has been growing at record levels...

The landscape is littered with failed predictions made by climate science....actual evidenced based science can make all manner of predictions....predictions of chemical reactions...predictions of physical reactions and on and on...that happen with predictability because the basics are well understood and therefore reactions are predictable...climate science on the other hand.....

And science is made up of individuals....when a climate scientist makes a prediction....and and the prediction is well distributed among the public....
climate scientists remain quiet and don't disclaim the prediction...they then, by their silence accept the prediction.

There are, however predictions made by the AGW hypothesis itself which have failed to materialize, such as the tropospheric hot spot....the hot spot was to be the very signature...the smoking gun supporting the hypothesis....a million + radiosondes have failed to detect it.

 

[SSDD]

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed

The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.

So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science?

No, but I'm not blind to the political uses of science. Or the political twisting of science.

Very big of you to admit it and validate Dante's point

Dante's point was, "Look at the cool picture, now you have to believe everything I say"

cafeteria style science on display: Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

Why does a Hubble photo make NASA recommendations about fossil fuels somehow correct?

The very same science that put that telescope up there has observed the effect of the burning of fossil fuels on the climate. You put 43% more CO2 and 250% more CH4 in the atmosphere, you are going to warm the atmosphere. So it is time use another energy source. One that does not put GHGs into the atmosphere.

Except it isn't happening....warming has been flat for over 2 decades now and the only increase you can find is the result of data manipulation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

Why does a Hubble photo make NASA recommendations about fossil fuels somehow correct?

They don't and no one claims they do.

But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA. That is unless you are also more of an expert than NASA scientists on space an cosmology, as much as you are more of an expert than NASA scientists on climate change?

When I say "we believe them because they are NASA" I say this with the knowledge that there claims are fact checked and a consensus is built around their claims

But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA.

Yes, their claims about Hubble photos are very believable. About AGW, not so much.

 

[Dante]

I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science...

I am talking about the scientists who have total confidence in the climate science.

Question: Why would any rational human being take your arguments seriously, when there exists a 'consensus' on the climate science, within the scientific community? Your argument is that your reasonings are just as valid as those of the scientific community. I'm sorry to tell you, that sounds a bit Maybe even more than a bit

 

[SSDD]

Is it that you are unable to actually argue against my reasons for not believing the climate science community...

Your reasons for inferring NASA is lying?

Seriously? The climate science community has just stated...with a straight face, that they will require a 23 TRILLION dollar investment.

 

[Dante]

But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA.

Yes, their claims about Hubble photos are very believable. About AGW, not so much.

They are to an overwhelming majority of real scientists, as opposed to people like you, forming a 'consensus' within the scientific community.

 

[Old Rocks]

As I already stated...I am not one of the anti regulation crowd...

you can state whatever your heart wants you to. But the facts are you stopped believing in the science when it became an issue of regulation. Throw as many words at it as you can, but the history of the 'debates' over climate change started with anti-regulation $$$ funding opposition science. Some of the same people doing opposition science as shilled for Big Tobacco

Just be honest

Is it that you are unable to actually argue against my reasons for not believing the climate science community and resulting position and therefore must invent a position to argue against...or can you just not read?

I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science and it is due to a complete lack of observe, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the prevailing hypothesis...if you can't argue against that position...I completely understand why....since there is no counter argument to be made without providing the very observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence I have asked for and it simply does not exist.

You are simply a damned liar. It has been provided for you time and time. The fact that we have a warming world has been established. The melting of the Arctic Sea Ice has been and is being observed. The last three years records, the three warmest years on record, right in a row.

One has only to look and listen to the videos of the lectures at the annual AGU meeting in San Francisco to see and hear the scientists present evidence and observations you falsely claim does not exist.

 

[Dante]

Is it that you are unable to actually argue against my reasons for not believing the climate science community...

Your reasons for inferring NASA is lying?

Seriously? The climate science community has just stated...with a straight face, that they will require a 23 TRILLION dollar investment.

In what context? Worldwide? Over decades? What?

You disbelieve NASA because you claim it is "The climate science community" asking for a "23 TRILLION dollar investment?" Or saying a "23 TRILLION dollar investment" would be needed 'if' certain things are not addressed, or are addressed wrongly?

In what context? But more seriously, it is the cost somebody mentions that makes you disbelieve 'science'???