https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/letter-to-lamar-smith/#more-5019
Read this: a letter clarifying the author's position on another study used by climate change deniers to distort the truth.
Top scientists admit no warming in 20 years
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/letter-to-lamar-smith/#more-5019
Read this: a letter clarifying the author's position on another study used by climate change deniers to distort the truth.
I do question the validity of the skepticism. I think it's mostly people wanting to believe something reading the opinions of others that want to believe something that dug "facts" out of altered stats and straight up lies.
What would it take for you to believe that climate change is currently warming the earth, and this change is caused by man?
What science isn't grounded in fact? Tell me what's not grounded in fact? Just one thing
The article you cited did not state anything about man-made global warming him despite your protestations. The summary provided in the article i cited is accurate. 28 scientist agreed to it. hey famous quote I remember from A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth."
The degree to which man is responsible for global warming.
I'll tell you my honest opinion, just based on nothing but my own feelings. Climate change proponents, the true zealots, use climate change as the basis for the green movement. It started with cleaning up pollution and changing behavior. It caught traction and the tree hugging hippies got a little power and are milking it to the enth degree.
As I said, I'm in the middle. I think we should be environmentally conscious. As an outdoorsman and semiprofessional saltwater angler it infuriates me to see trash in nature. I support and donate to various local initiatives aimed at cleaning up trash and what not from the bay and coastal areas. I was glad to see us leave the Paris accords though because I felt that was a money/power grab and a usurption of US power to a global governing body. We can still do what we pledged to do without throwing money to fledgling ******** nations.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WVMgIYUpCEc
Despite how often I disagree with your opinions, attitudes, and political ideology, I think you're a solid thinker and a pretty well rounded individual. The above link is to an article that attempts to identify the reasons that climate change is attributed to man's activities. In which the main focus is on climate modeling using natural factors as the driving forces for temperature rise. They all failed to mirror the current level of rise that we see. I point to this as relevant due to the constant bombardment of climate model inaccuracy as the biggest indicator of skepticism for those who do not believe in manmade climate change.
Of course there are many other points made in the article, and each of these points are disputed by skeptic "science". For each of these attempts to refute the scientific evidence there is a scientific explaination that denies that attempt's validity. Outside of the lies, of course.
Yet these illegitimate attempts are plastered over rightwing websites, and perpetually recycled by knowing and unknowing foot soldiers in the attempt to defend business against the changes that must be made immediately.
There are some legitimate questions. Most of which are why the climates models have not been accurate (in all cases, some have been very accurate despite the claims). Scientists are exploring those discrepancies in an attempt to better understand a complex science. A study doing exactly that was used by rightwing websites as an example of how "top scientists agree that global warming has stopped for the last 20 years", the truth is however the study did no such thing. Paxxx claims that 28 of the authors said this but were silenced by two authors. I've searched for this denial and accusation of fraud (cause that's what the claim is) and found nothing (not on rightwing websites). Instead I have found articles and work written by many of the 28 authors reiterating the main points of 1: the climate is warming and 2: the change is caused by man.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ep/17/global-warming-fingerprints-santer-2013
There are many things that deserve true discussion. How to combat this......what urgency do we need to take.....do we partner with other nations.....what extent will change come.....if tech can reverse the trend.....what can the market do without intervention.....how do we best prevent people and families from being economically destroyed by actions to reverse the trend
But attacking the science that exists in fact by sighting inaccurate models and conspiracy theories is just ridiculous at this point.
How much funding do any of these get from the Government or others who have an agenda that includes man made influences on climate? Too much 'research' is solely to get more money to do more of the same. Research for the purpose of confirming the conclusion drawn prior to the start of the investigation and in line with what the granting agency wants to have published. Check out the 'scientists' and see who is their funding sources. Then draw conclusions regarding the validity of their research and, especially, their conclusions. Much of the quoted climate change research is pure bunk and overly interpreted to benefit the Government agency providing the funding.
Crap. Scientists research, it's what they do. Is there a lot of private funds being used to purchase scientific knowledge? College campuses maybe, and even then the big money isn't getting to the scientists. Do you think these men and women are living like Al Gore? Please. These are men and women doing something they believe in, and trying to help us all understand what is at stake and how to make the changes to help. Calling them whores in order to feel more comfy doing whatever you please is foolish and simply wrong.
Talk about fake news! This is a perfect example of the rightwing propaganda machine at work. Lies and misinformation posing as patriotic truth. Taking the work of 28 scientists and misrepresenting it to serve the views that stand in opposition to them. Shameful and disgusting.
Well, at least you are starting to understand the frustration from the right after the last 8 years of cheerleading by the media.
Some will win and some will lose in climate change. What is better......endangering Wolfe,Beaver and Snow Owl population or thriving and growing Buffalo,Elk and Deer population in Yellowstone Park?
I'll give you the Obama cheerleading, but this is a step above here.....there are many things you consider yourself an expert of I'm sure [eyeroll]. But if someone took your legitimate findings on how increased military autonomy will help the US forces be more effective in the ME (for example).....then twisted words within your findings to indicate you actually advocate for the opposite, and that was used by many people like me (who don't know jack about either aspect of the issue) to argue against military autonomy.....you'd have to admit its more than simply blowing sunshine. It's sinister.
Again, there are many debates to be had about what's happening, what's needs to happen, and how to do it. But the debate over manmade climate change is a smokescreen to prevent business losses.
How is tha any different than suggesting 97% of scientists create a consensus when those scientists dont all believe the same thing regarding climate change?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...tists-just-debunked-deniers-favorite-argument
Yeah, I don't expect you to read it.
If the consensus is that humans are causing climate change then the 97% don't have to agree exactly to what degree humans are causing climate change to agree that humans ARE causing climate change. It's like if 97% of sports pundits think WVU is better than Pitt but those 97% disagree about how much better WVU is than Pitt.
I don't know if that 97% number was ever confirmed but a general consensus on the subject exists nonetheless.
The consensus reflects the points that 1: climate change is causing a global warming effect 2: the effect could be devastating and 3: it is caused by man
There's enough of a consensus to convince all but 3 nations to do something substantial about it.
Dana Nuccitelli is a blogger on environmentguardian.co.uk. He is an environmental scientist and risk assessor, and also contributes to... blah blah blah
Flawed arguments.
The models are wrong. They do make projections, usually the "line" will be one of two scenarios: A percent chance that actual will hit directly on the line, or, a median that actual will end up +/- some percentage on either side. These models are the latter, and actual was beyond their percent error potential.
Now that we have established that the models are wrong, you can blame two different possibilities: The input, or, the methodology in computing the projections. Not "many different possibilities".
The satellite data is the satellite data. It's raw information given to us by objective machines. That is the input. Anything done to that data from that point on is part of the process of the model calculations. Let me repeat: Any part of the process that changes that data to build models (including how they determine an average) is part of the model building process. Those are calculations, not input.
I contend the blogger is wrong on that anyways. The average won't be what's modelled. Each satellite source would be what's modelled, and then an average at any point (time) calculated. Predicting off of raw data is much more accurate than averages.
THE - Predictive analytics resource for 3 years
"could be"
"that weren’t anticipated in the assumptions made by climate modellers."
The models are wrong and the calculations are flawed. Now they're trying to justify.
I said during the 2007ish IPCC's that they were too smart for their own britches, and couldn't know every possible variable. It's come to fruition.
"All models are wrong but some models are useful." --George Box
ETA: More George Box:
Now it would be very remarkable if any system existing in the real world could be exactly represented by any simple model. However, cunningly chosen parsimonious models often do provide remarkably useful approximations. For example, the law PV = RT relating pressure P, volume V and temperature T of an "ideal" gas via a constant R is not exactly true for any real gas, but it frequently provides a useful approximation and furthermore its structure is informative since it springs from a physical view of the behavior of gas molecules.
For such a model there is no need to ask the question "Is the model true?". If "truth" is to be the "whole truth" the answer must be "No". The only question of interest is "Is the model illuminating and useful?".
It's a complex science, and PREDICTIONS are not meant to be dead on....that's why multiple models are used by the same org. Science is attempting to refine a process that isn't very old btw. Doesn't change the fact that the rightwing propaganda lies are still raging in full effect.....knowing and unknowing foot soldiers spreading false information in an attempt to serve their own agenda.