International Man made climate change

[MayhemMonkey]

Also had the coldest winter for 40 years was it?..

Another heatwave on the way

shhh, lets not talk about winter..... Im enjoying the sun too much

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

How is this a partisan issue?

Because the political left is demanding money, power, and authority over a theory that conveniently lacks any standard of falsifiability.

The standard of falsifiability is the fundamental requirement to even call something "science". Without a standard of falsifiability, the theory in question is no longer a scientific theory, it becomes a form of social Dogma.

If those who advocate for the theory of manmade climate change are unable or unwilling to put their theory through the basic rigors of every other scientific theory, they shouldn't be surprised when others are unwilling to give them the power they desire.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

ooo on the contrary my friend. Are you not aware that it is those pesky science geeks trying to get grants and that scrappy group of do good billionaire oil tycoons are here to help by exposing them. . .

Well.....

People respond to incentive.

Climate scientists are people.

Therefore:

Climate scientists respond to incentive.


I find it fascinating that people are willing to put climate scientists into some completely different moral category from every other person, simply because of their beliefs on the climate change issue.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I wish there would be more appeal to people on the right's love of the outdoors, but because people they consider nancies have taken up the save the Earth mantra they have taken a stance against them.

There's also the fact that the it's become a debate of "is man made climate change real or not" when that shouldn't really matter and it should be marketed as preserving nature and open space no matter how much we effect global warming and whatnot. The marketing of protecting the environment is all wrong.

I personally maintain 40 acres of wildlife habitat my Great Grandfather purchased between the world wars.

It's a forest with a nice healthy Creek running through it. It also has a natural spring. We have Deer, Pheasants, Quail, Badgers, Foxes, snapping turtles, coyotes, bobcats, and the occasional mountain lion.

I've done more to preserve nature and help Wildlife than your average environmental activist could ever hope to.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Scotland is currently having an actual summer.... fuck anyone that says climate change isnt real lol

we used to get a couple days of sun if we were lucky, its just hot now.... like all the time!

Same in Denmark. Heatwave since the beginning of may. This summer is breaking records world wide.

Weather =/= Climate

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Correction: the planet should be cooling now because of a drop in total solar irradiance. None of the recent warming is natural. So, in this sense, more than all of the warming is due to human activity.

Do you have any evidence for this theory that isn't based on a climate model?

If your theory is true, to what precise degree can we measure what warming can be attributed to humanity?

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Weather =/= Climate

someone had to piss on my cornflakes eh?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

someone had to piss on my cornflakes eh?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

I personally maintain 40 acres of wildlife habitat my Great Grandfather purchased between the world wars.

It's a forest with a nice healthy Creek running through it. It also has a natural spring. We have Deer, Pheasants, Quail, Badgers, Foxes, snapping turtles, coyotes, bobcats, and the occasional mountain lion.

I've done more to preserve nature and help Wildlife than your average environmental activist could ever hope to.

 

[Tiny]

If Climate change were really as threatening a problem to humanity as those who claim it is...

Then anything that burned greenhouse emitting gases would be banned outright. Like drastic policies would be put into place.

Forgive me for not treating the situation as dire when the government goes out of their way to back up big oil companies while al gore hops on his gas burning private jet to globe trot.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

 

[Swing]

Because the political left is demanding money, power, and authority over a theory that conveniently lacks any standard of falsifiability.

The standard of falsifiability is the fundamental requirement to even call something "science". Without a standard of falsifiability, the theory in question is no longer a scientific theory, it becomes a form of social Dogma.

If those who advocate for the theory of manmade climate change are unable or unwilling to put their theory through the basic rigors of every other scientific theory, they shouldn't be surprised when others are unwilling to give them the power they desire.

Obviously you can't test the accuracy of a model until the present catches up to its prediction. That is what researchers are doing; they aren't simply referring to models without testing their accuracy.

An MIT Technology Review article on how researchers are evaluating which climate change models are the most accurate.

There are problems with climate models, but the ones that are most accurate are the ones that produce the most warming in the future.

 

[RockstarChris]

i wonder what the impact of removing taco bell would have on climate change. since the o zone is being depleted by cow farts and all. stop the beef stop the farts kill the cows. Lets change.org

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Obviously you can't test the accuracy of a model until the present catches up to its prediction.

Hence, my perfectly justified skepticism.

A theory that can't be proven until some nebulous point in the future is a good sign someone is selling bullshit.

That is what researchers are doing; they aren't simply referring to models without testing their accuracy.

An MIT Technology Review article on how researchers are evaluating which climate change models are the most accurate.

Climate models aren't science. It can be helpful, but it in no way constitutes objective scientific data. A program is only as good as the data entered into it. The Michael Mann controversy shows us that the entry of that data can also be susceptible to bias.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

i wonder what the impact of removing taco bell would have on climate change. since the o zone is being depleted by cow farts and all. stop the beef stop the farts kill the cows. Lets change.org

I figured it would at least cut down on the gaseous emissions of the people who eat at Taco Bell <Lmaoo>

 

[Swing]

Hence, my perfectly justified skepticism.

A theory that can't be proven until some nebulous point in the future is a good sign someone is selling bullshit.


Climate models aren't science. It can be helpful, but it in no way constitutes objective scientific data. A program is only as good as the data entered into it. The Michael Mann controversy shows us that the entry of that data can also be susceptible to bias.

No one is claiming that a model constitutes observed data. You can still assess how well the model is doing by comparing it with scientific data. From the article:

Climate models are sophisticated software simulations that assess how the climate reacts to various influences. For this study, the scientists collected more than a decade’s worth of satellite observations concerning the amount of sunlight reflected back into space by things like clouds, snow, and ice; how much infrared radiation is escaping from Earth; and the net balance between the amount of energy entering and leaving the atmosphere. Then the researchers compared that “top-of-atmosphere” data with the results of earlier climate models to determine which ones most accurately predicted what the satellites actually observed.

That is data.

 

[Prutfis]

Weather =/= Climate

I'm sorry, where did I say that was the case?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

No one is claiming that a model constitutes observed data. You can still assess how well the model is doing by comparing it with scientific data. From the article:



That is data.

So what's your take on the fact that, despite climate model predictions, we are currently in our 19th year of no global warming?

The models were wrong, and that was the entire basis for climate change legislation.

Even a model being shown to be correct at one slim point in time, doesn't mean that the data will always be input correctly, or without bias.

I find it interesting that's so many refuse to address the possibility that the data could be input in a biased way. People respond to incentives, climate scientists are people; therefore, climate scientists respond to incentives. Do you think it's outside the realm of possibility that a climate scientist who owes their degree and salary to the climate industry would fudge the data in the pursuit of grants or attention?

Considering it already happened in the case of Michael Mann, it's not outside the realm of possibility for me at all.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Weather =/= Climate

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2766/june-2018-ties-for-third-warmest-june-on-record/

Correct! It tied with June 1998 as the third warmest June in 138 years of modern record-keeping, with only June 2015 and 2016 (+0.80°C and +0.79°C) being warmer. So far 2018 is the fourth highest for January-June world wide average temperature in the 139-year record.

 

[Swing]

So what's your take on the fact that, despite climate model predictions, we are currently in our 19th year of no global warming?

The models were wrong, and that was the entire basis for climate change legislation.

Even a model being shown to be correct at one slim point in time, doesn't mean that the data will always be input correctly, or without bias.

I find it interesting that's so many refuse to address the possibility that the data could be input in a biased way. People respond to incentives, climate scientists are people; therefore, climate scientists respond to incentives. Do you think it's outside the realm of possibility that a climate scientist who owes their degree and salary to the climate industry would fudge the data in the pursuit of grants or attention?

Considering it already happened in the case of Michael Mann, it's not outside the realm of possibility for me at all.

How do you figure we're in our 19th year of no global warming when the five warmest years on record have been in the 2010s? I don't know if those are due primarily to us, but global average temperatures seem to be going up. only 2012 and 2016 were warmer than 2017.

Neither one of us can quantify in terms of time or accuracy how accurate the models have been. On top of which, the article I posted was about scientists trying to figure out which models have been the most accurate and which models should be used for specific applications. In this thread, you've been trying to push the idea that no honest effort has been put forth to hold these models to a scientific standard. They're just social dogma, or whatever. That is obviously false. Although it seems like regardless of how well refined a model becomes, you aren't going to be interested in listening to it.

As for your distrust of climate scientists, that whole argument seems like a nonstarter. Here, I'm going to quote you and just change a word or two: People respond to incentives, energy lobbyists are people; therefore, energy lobbyists respond to incentives. Do you think it's outside the realm of possibility that an energy lobbyist who owes their degree and salary to the energy industry would fudge the data in the pursuit of political backing?

If you're just not going to trust the people involved at all, then what's the point of even pretending to consider the situation? You're basically saying that you aren't going to listen regardless of whatever evidence climate scientists can come up with.