Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    The question is still why are the models consider scientifically valid when they constantly have to add correctives variables. We have been told over and over again that the science is settled but the evidence is that it is not.
    Are you informing us that you - Believe Snow Shovellers cartoons?
    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

    Comment


    • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

      Are you informing us that you - Believe Snow Shovellers cartoons?
      Don't take this the wrong way but I'm pretty sure there is no one on this forum who can validate the mainstream climate science. In fact there is no one anywhere who can because the climate scientists will not open up their models to general scrutiny. I will go one step further and say that it is highly unlikely that climate scientists themselves understand the models. That is the current state of science in almost any field that studies complex chaotic systems.

      I'm to go way out on a limb here and illustrate how ridiculous it is to believe the climate scientists based on faith. Which is what you are all doing because I know you do not understand the models. I'm going to ask you to consider without prejudice that there are substantial evidence for differences in national IQ that are shocking. Before you reply just consider how much your arguments are going to sound like those of the climate deniers.

      As I stated the models have been sufficiently inaccurate to be of any practical use. The predictions have been close to three hundred percent off. In what other area of science would such errors be considered acceptable?

      All I'm asking is that you ask yourself in your heart of hearts if you can honestly say you know the predictions are reliable.

      What I know is that the climate researcher have turned science on it's head. What they did not do is first establish a baseline based on a comprehensive understanding by which to establish anthropogenic contributions to warming. The reason they didn't is because there is no science by which that could be done.

      To understand the problem you need to read Stephen Wolfram's a new kind of science. The current state of science is just inadequate for complex chaotic systems.

      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • I probably won't read this thread anymore. There are more important things for all of us to concern ourselves with.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
          All I'm asking is that you ask yourself in your heart of hearts if you can honestly say you know the predictions are reliable.
          Ok, first, that's a false choice. I don't have to reject all notions of climate change, as you do, if I don't fully trust "the models".

          Second, if I'm forced to choose between what information I have and idiotic cartoons, it's not even a contest. The horrific thing is that people think the cartoons are compelling somehow. That's so depressing and sad it's..... depressing and sad.

          Third, people act as if models have never been used in science before anywhere. They're used all the time for large systems that are difficult or impossible to replicate in test environments. This is a growing set as human built systems get larger and more complex. To reject modelling is to reject large scale human engineering and research altogether.

          Finally, if I am forced to choose, then: Yes, I believe the models. Asked and answered.
          Last edited by DingBat; 15 Feb 20, 22:43.

          Comment


          • Models are guesses, predictions, and the models ,predictions of the past have been proved to be wrong .
            Thus, why should we believe the new guesses,predictions made by the same people who were wrong in the past ?
            These people have lost all credibility .

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
              Models are guesses, predictions, and the models ,predictions of the past have been proved to be wrong .
              Thus, why should we believe the new guesses,predictions made by the same people who were wrong in the past ?
              These people have lost all credibility .
              Models are not “guesses”. They are simulations with necessary generalizations forced on them due to the scale of the system and the inability to replicate them in a sandbox environment.

              As far as I’m aware the climate models have proven to be quite accurate, so I’m not sure where your claim comes from.

              But here’s the real question: if you don’t believe in climate change and adamantly reject any argument to the contrary, why surf this thread? Just say: “I don’t believe in climate change” and go on your merry way.

              Comment


              • A model was giving the start of a little ice age in 2020 .
                Simulations are predictions,and predictions are guesses .
                If a woman would predict your future at a fancy-fair, you would not believe her .
                Thus ,why should we believe models that tell us what will be the climate in 2070 ?
                No one can predict the future .
                An exemple of a site using a model ,and telling us, with the authority argument from professors as Valentina Zharkova,that climate is changing and that in 2020 we will see the start of a Little Ice Age :
                WhatsOrb :Cooling by a Grand Solar Minimum or Global Warming by CO ?

                And, there will be no start of a Little Ice Age, but,next year, WhatsOrb,will try to to fool us with something else .
                Models are constructed to support theories, not to prove theories .
                Global Warming Theories are constructed by people who are hostile to the present society and want to change it and try to persuade John Doe that he must do what they say,or that otherwise all life on earth will die .
                And knowing the political opinions of these people, it is obvious that the whole Global Warming hysteria is nothing more than a propaganda offensive from those who in 1990 were rejected by history on the dunghill .
                Global Warming is nothing more than a Marxist Trojan Horse to destroy Western Societies .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                  Models are guesses, predictions, and the models ,predictions of the past have been proved to be wrong .
                  Thus, why should we believe the new guesses,predictions made by the same people who were wrong in the past ?
                  These people have lost all credibility .
                  As said, no they are not.

                  The other thing is that even IF they were based on directly that kind of "abductive reasoning" (and a bunch of things in science and research tends to be), "guessing" if that's what you call it, can and will eventually be tested and confirmed inductively by observational data.

                  Since the climate science research has pretty much been stuck in no gear at all, as far as political action based on its findings is concerned, going on the last thirty years or so, the researchers are now collecting precisely the kind of inductive confirmation of the early models of thirty years ago that has been asked for.

                  Except the conclusions now tend to be that the models were wildly optimistic and things are shifting faster and more radically. (So yeah, they were badly wrong, but mostly for not being radical enough.)

                  Which should have been suspected, since the models of thirty years ago was lowest-common-denominator-consensus stuff that everyone involved in the research could agree on as a bare minimum. Except its detractors then played it up as somehow crazy radical alarmist stuff.

                  But if you like there is of course the general "paradox of science"; i.e. science has so far ALWAYS wrong in some way about everything. It is very the reason science continues to progress. If it wasn't like that it would just stop, but it doesn't, instead it improves.

                  But that paradox can of course be an argument for those who want to dispense with factual and research-based knowledge altogether. Getting rid of experts and people who generally know about things can be liberating in a way.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                    A model was giving the start of a little ice age in 2020 .
                    Simulations are predictions,and predictions are guesses .
                    If a woman would predict your future at a fancy-fair, you would not believe her .
                    Thus ,why should we believe models that tell us what will be the climate in 2070 ?
                    No one can predict the future .
                    An exemple of a site using a model ,and telling us, with the authority argument from professors as Valentina Zharkova,that climate is changing and that in 2020 we will see the start of a Little Ice Age :
                    WhatsOrb :Cooling by a Grand Solar Minimum or Global Warming by CO ?

                    And, there will be no start of a Little Ice Age, but,next year, WhatsOrb,will try to to fool us with something else .
                    Models are constructed to support theories, not to prove theories .
                    Global Warming Theories are constructed by people who are hostile to the present society and want to change it and try to persuade John Doe that he must do what they say,or that otherwise all life on earth will die .
                    And knowing the political opinions of these people, it is obvious that the whole Global Warming hysteria is nothing more than a propaganda offensive from those who in 1990 were rejected by history on the dunghill .
                    Global Warming is nothing more than a Marxist Trojan Horse to destroy Western Societies .
                    Don’t expect an intelligent debate with fanatics their minds are set especially when it means the green movement benefits their far left political desires they’ll deny every fact no matter how it’s presented that threatens what can be their political gain

                    Comment


                    • For those of you interested, here is the "model" (it's not) that iljadw is referring to:

                      The ‘Mini Ice Age’ Hoopla Is A Giant Failure Of Science Communication

                      Relevant quote:
                      Crucially, the press release doesn’t say what the implications of a future Maunder minimum are for climate.

                      How would a new Maunder minimum impact climate? It’s an obvious question, and one that climate scientists have already answered. But many journalists didn’t ask the experts, instead drawing their own conclusions.
                      Since we've agreed that SkepticalScience is an excellent source of climate information, here's a summary of how a Maunder minimum might impact climate change (tldr; not much).

                      A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming

                      In summary, posters here are blaming scientists for the speculation of journalists.
                      Last edited by DingBat; 16 Feb 20, 11:16.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jutland View Post

                        Because the models were correct, a model that over estimates temp rises from the 80's wasn't wrong, it just didn't factor in legislation that limited CFC's.... because scientists can't tell the future they can only make predictions based on the information at hand.

                        Models are refined to make them more accurate but they haven't been proven wrong by anybody yet.
                        GREAT point.
                        we are children of the Holocene, and we have to live with the changes we create - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
                        Outliers in climate, such as the massive Mount toba eruption of 70,000 years ago, and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolid seuperbolide that triggered the younger dryas cooling are still not predictable.

                        IT IS SPECULATED THAT the toba eruption wiped Homo sapiens down to less than 300 breeding couples. fortunately, we recovered before Homo ERECTUS HAD US FOR LUNCH.

                        but that is a case for more scientific speculation, - not less.

                        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                        Comment


                        • The Climate Change Lobby proposes to put in prison,or kill the climate change deniers . That proves that they have no valid arguments .It proves also that they have hidden aims,as totalitarian collectivists always have : they want the change the world and create an other society;they know that this will cause the death not of millions, but of billions , but they do not care .They are also hypocrites who want for themselves alone ,cars ,aircraft, while the rest of the world population can perish.As the euthanasia and eugenics lobby, they claim the right to decide who can live and who must die .
                          They are the same as the nazis .
                          I know a couple of 2 old people,man and woman, who live in an old small farm,far away in the countryside ,for heating they have an old wood stove and an old coal stove .Within a few years, they have to change them . But, in a few years , it will be forbidden to sell/buy coal stoves and wood stoves . They can't afford heating by electricity, gas is not available,heating by fuel oil will no longer be possible for new clients . Thus these people will have the choice between dying from cold and hunger,or to commit suicide .
                          But the green Jihadists do not care .

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                            The Climate Change Lobby proposes to put in prison,or kill the climate change deniers . That proves that they have no valid arguments .It proves also that they have hidden aims,as totalitarian collectivists always have : they want the change the world and create an other society;they know that this will cause the death not of millions, but of billions , but they do not care .They are also hypocrites who want for themselves alone ,cars ,aircraft, while the rest of the world population can perish.As the euthanasia and eugenics lobby, they claim the right to decide who can live and who must die .
                            They are the same as the nazis .
                            I know a couple of 2 old people,man and woman, who live in an old small farm,far away in the countryside ,for heating they have an old wood stove and an old coal stove .Within a few years, they have to change them . But, in a few years , it will be forbidden to sell/buy coal stoves and wood stoves . They can't afford heating by electricity, gas is not available,heating by fuel oil will no longer be possible for new clients . Thus these people will have the choice between dying from cold and hunger,or to commit suicide .
                            But the green Jihadists do not care .
                            Soylent Green is people.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                              So the science climate change is "a political struggle"??
                              It is when, ONE: it includes political actions as proposed solutions such as laws and regulations that will tax "carbon" emissions, "cap" "carbon emissions", allow one to emit carbon emissions if a fee is paid to the guv'mint, pass laws and legislation constricting use of "fossil fuels"(carbon resources), any and many other similar "solutions" to a non-problem that governments will apply, and enforce.

                              Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                              Oh dear- and all this time I thought that we were debating- science. Silly me.......
                              Yeah, I guess so, that "silly" part.

                              Anytime anyone uses the terms "climate change" or "global warming" and fails to precede with the qualifier of either "Natural" or "ANTHROPOGENIC" they have failed in the primary first step of lacking precision in terms and language to qualify as "science discussion" and have remained in the realm of "political discussion" where the first application of propaganda is to engage ambiguity of terms and blurring of the subject/topic.

                              Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                              The caloric theory of heat transfer works well enough in many areas as a rule of thumb - but is rather outdated- like a cartoon sequence being posted that we have two dozen times before...
                              Is gravity outdated?

                              Examples presented on IR wavelength absorption would appear to apply to only about 0.04%(or less) of dry atmospheric content so if you have an alternate for consideration that applies to the other 99.96% consider doing the "scientific thing" and present such.

                              Cartoon sequences are no more redundant than the many supposed "scientific articles" that say little and don't address the full spectrum of the topic/subject, which have also been presented dozens of times.

                              Illustrations can often convey a thought or concept better than paragraphs to pages of dry and obscure text.

                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                              Present Current Events are the Future's History

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                                Oh no, that site is excellent. However, you are not interpreting it correctly.
                                I wouldn't agree that it is an 'excellent site' as it is heavily stilled with political based bias. I used only because it sits on your side of the fence in this topic area.

                                This is my vote for an excellent site on "climate science";
                                https://wattsupwiththat.com/

                                Originally posted by DingBat View Post
                                You said:
                                "The primary foundation(hypothesis) of anthropogenic climate change/global warming(ACC/AGW) is that the carbon dioxide (CO2) retains enough heat to pass onto and heat up the rest of the atmosphere."

                                This is not correct. Furthermore, the quote you provided does not support your statement or make it any more correct.
                                Your subjective OPINION. Please explain how this isn't another way of saving the same thing;

                                "Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes."

                                Originally posted by DingBat View Post
                                But please, keep going with your superior climate science game.
                                More an alternate "climate science game" but comes closer to superior because I try to separate natural from anthropogenic/human caused, where as the politically motivated true-believers in ACC/AGW frequently don't and blur the distinctions, either through ignorance or dis-informational intent.
                                Last edited by G David Bock; 16 Feb 20, 14:12.
                                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                                Present Current Events are the Future's History

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X