lol
Yup. Also precipitated a lot of whining and moaning about collapsing economies occurring if we changed our habits.
Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Blog
April 13
More Pseudoscience in Climate Dogma
Dr David Whitehouse posted this introductory paragraph on his post Decadal Doubts:
AGW Climate science isn’t, it’s pseudoscience and the quandary expressed by Whitehouse is founded in the dogmatic belief in the standard hypothesis, which must obviously be true, so that some other, unknown force is operating in the atmosphere that is counteracting the, obviously correct, fact that increased atmospheric CO2 must cause the atmosphere’s temperature to rise.
This pseudoscientific approach is also pervasive in astrophysics where anomalous measured velocities of spiral galaxies, for example, were interpreted as some other force counteracting gravity, since there wasn’t enough mass in the galaxy to explain the observed dynamics. Rather than conclude that the astrophysical standard model might be flawed, or just plain wrong, astrophysics then invented black holes, dark energy and dark matter, all invisible objects created by innovative maths, to make the standard equations describing spiral galaxy motion work. Intellectual virtuosity divorced from the compulsion of empirical facts.
But if spiral galaxy motion is described by the equations of Maxwell and Lorentz, then no anomalous velocities appear, and hence the galaxy dynamics are simply described without the recourse to ad hoc addition of non physical, unseen, imagined mathematically contrived, astronomical objects.
So too with climate science. Whitehouse writes further:
Excuse me, but, paraphrasing Oliver Cromwell, have you climate scientists considered even the POSSIBILITY that your standard hypothesis might be wrong?
April 13More Pseudoscience in Climate Dogma
Dr David Whitehouse posted this introductory paragraph on his post Decadal Doubts:
It is now clear to most climate researchers that something has been stopping the world from warming in the past decade. During this time, according to the standard hypothesis, levels of man-made greenhouse gasses have increased in our atmosphere so the temperature should have gone up. It obviously hasn’t so what is cooling our world? Source.
As a scientific empiricist my interpretation is that the standard hypothesis is wrong, and not that some other unknown, yet to be discovered, force is cooling the atmosphere contrary to expectations.
AGW Climate science isn’t, it’s pseudoscience and the quandary expressed by Whitehouse is founded in the dogmatic belief in the standard hypothesis, which must obviously be true, so that some other, unknown force is operating in the atmosphere that is counteracting the, obviously correct, fact that increased atmospheric CO2 must cause the atmosphere’s temperature to rise.
This pseudoscientific approach is also pervasive in astrophysics where anomalous measured velocities of spiral galaxies, for example, were interpreted as some other force counteracting gravity, since there wasn’t enough mass in the galaxy to explain the observed dynamics. Rather than conclude that the astrophysical standard model might be flawed, or just plain wrong, astrophysics then invented black holes, dark energy and dark matter, all invisible objects created by innovative maths, to make the standard equations describing spiral galaxy motion work. Intellectual virtuosity divorced from the compulsion of empirical facts.
But if spiral galaxy motion is described by the equations of Maxwell and Lorentz, then no anomalous velocities appear, and hence the galaxy dynamics are simply described without the recourse to ad hoc addition of non physical, unseen, imagined mathematically contrived, astronomical objects.
So too with climate science. Whitehouse writes further:
Many are in no doubt about what lies a century or so ahead. The human “signal” of increased levels of greenhouse gasses causing higher temperatures is written into climate models so decadal variations are seen as just short-term noise. They will eventual be overwhelmed by the incessant AGW climate forcing. Whatever decadal variations are doing they will eventually, according to the standard hypothesis, be averaged out. This means as far as projections of a century ahead one can effectively forget decadal variations. In the short term however, the influences on the climate will be human and decadal, and clearly, as the past ten years have shown, natural decadal variations are far stronger.
That the human signal is hard coded into the climate models IS the problem. The hypothesis itself is wrong, that human emission of CO2 causes the atmospheric temperature to rise. Rather than admit the standard hypothesis is wrong, (which the observations and measurements clearly point to), climate science, like their astrophysical colleagues before them, will embark on a search to find out why their, obviously correct, belief in the human signal, is being affected.
Excuse me, but, paraphrasing Oliver Cromwell, have you climate scientists considered even the POSSIBILITY that your standard hypothesis might be wrong?
Cough Cough BULL $HIT!
Most climate researchers know that climate is average thirty year weather, not ten years. Most climate researchers know what a signal to noise ratio means. Most climate researchers know that in no way does global warming require monotonic warming of the planet.
Excuse me, Dr. Whoever the hell you are, but where did your degree come from? A cereal box? You're a walking appeal to authority.
Most climate researchers know that climate is average thirty year weather, not ten years. Most climate researchers know what a signal to noise ratio means. Most climate researchers know that in no way does global warming require monotonic warming of the planet.
Excuse me, Dr. Whoever the hell you are, but where did your degree come from? A cereal box? You're a walking appeal to authority.
Soooo. This only happens here or something. Not that I disagree, it's just that nobody listens or even hears usually. Here or in RL IMO. Just sayin'.;-)
I'm listening eh1.
I stopped debating this topic, because I honestly do lack the faculties to disseminate the facts.
I admit that I remain skeptical, but I lean to the pro, largely because of Tonnington and the fact that I trust him.
But that won't stop me from asking questions, even if it looks like I'm not listening.
Yep. Stuff is happening fo' sho'. I hope we figure it out but seeing as the earth works on 1000+ year cycles we will probably only know when the earth turns to a desert like Mars. Then we can say, ''Holy crap, global warming was really happening all those thousands of years ago. What a bunch of stupid male chicken smokers our ancestors were."
It's not. It's only cooling if you confine yourself to the surface temperature record (and selected datasets!), and ignore:
a) anything remotely related to variability
b) statistical significance
c) the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere
Go to skeptical science and see for yourself why ignoring the ocean heat is laughable for anyone who claims the globe is cooling:
Is global warming still happening?
If you want a good understanding of the variability side of things, I'll post a few graphs from tamino:
So this graph shows 25 years of the NASA record. That is close to the benchmark definition of climate, it's not quite 30 years, but the trend (solid line) is statistically significant. Lots of variability, obviously. The dashed lines above and below are two standard deviations, which means that we would expect close to 96% of all observations to fall within the two dashed lines, for variability above and below the mean. Some years are cooler, some years are warmer. It's entirely natural to have variability like this.
Here's what it looks like when we bring it up to the present:
Clearly, the temperature after the vertical dashed line on the year 2000 is in good agreement with the trend from before. The projected trend (large dash line) splits the data nicely (there's actually more points above than below.) There is one data point below the two standard deviation line, but you'll notice it's equally as low as the high in 1998.
What it shows clearly, is that there is no evidence that global warming has stopped, and the last 10 years of cooling are not statistically significant.
The Earth hasn't cooled. Anyone who tells you this is either:
a) ignorant, or
b) lying to you
Of course it never occurs to the heavily propagandized to question what's in their own heads first above all other considerations. Still it's nice to talk to you, have a nice evening.:smile:
Mr Tonnington!
I know this is a juvenile question BUT, Where is the Suzuki Ice Age????
When you were still just daddy's little squirt, Suzuki was tell me, a young impressionable man that there was an ice age coming and I would be farming in my living room. No sh!t he said that. Why am I now worried about my grand kids living in some kind of mid west desert dust bowl that is flooded three months of the year?
If this is already explained in this thread please cut and paste for the noobs.
I know this is a juvenile question BUT, Where is the Suzuki Ice Age????
When you were still just daddy's little squirt, Suzuki was tell me, a young impressionable man that there was an ice age coming and I would be farming in my living room. No sh!t he said that. Why am I now worried about my grand kids living in some kind of mid west desert dust bowl that is flooded three months of the year?
If this is already explained in this thread please cut and paste for the noobs.
Ok which thirty years would you like the conversation confined to Ton? Most climate researchers are industry selected specifically to support the pseudo scientific consensus of the planets management. What science degree does your hero Al Bore hold or how about Maurice Strong two of the primary originators and innovators in the field of climate change? The globe is the planet if the globe don't get warm neither does the planet or are you insinuating that the planet and the globe are two separate things. Get some sleep Tonnington making babies is tiring man, you newly weds are all the same.:lol:
Some scientists in the 70's were talking about possible ice age because there was evidence that our pollution was going to help out what would be happening relatively soon, relative to geology...
But that was only a handful of scientists, and they were correct about the science behind the pollution which causes cooling. Aerosols have the opposite impact that greenhouse gases do. They reflect, rather than absorb radiation.
As I said though, it was only a few scientists who thought this could happen. Most expected warming. A popular paper looked back at the literature and classified the results and predictions of investigations as far back as the 60's.
This is what that literature review found:
I've actually talked about this paper on this thread before, but if you want some more information, this is a good post at skeptical science on the issue:
Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
Even for those that were predicting an ice age, their predictions were based on assumptions that the global cooling pollution would continue, an assumption nullified by clean air acts and emissions trading (cap and trade).
But that was only a handful of scientists, and they were correct about the science behind the pollution which causes cooling. Aerosols have the opposite impact that greenhouse gases do. They reflect, rather than absorb radiation.
As I said though, it was only a few scientists who thought this could happen. Most expected warming. A popular paper looked back at the literature and classified the results and predictions of investigations as far back as the 60's.
This is what that literature review found:
I've actually talked about this paper on this thread before, but if you want some more information, this is a good post at skeptical science on the issue:
Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
Even for those that were predicting an ice age, their predictions were based on assumptions that the global cooling pollution would continue, an assumption nullified by clean air acts and emissions trading (cap and trade).
Who said anything about confining? Your science guy is the one who apparently thinks 10 years is enough to provide useful climate information. It's not.
Garbage. So according to you the company I work for (Big Pharma) selected me as the candidate because I support the consensus on immunization? Not because I am trained in issues germane to fish physiology/health?
Al Gore is a politician. I don't look to politicians for clear thinking on any issue...
The planet is getting warmer...I simply don't confine myself to the surface.
We're not making any babies :lol: We just practice lots. Want to be prepared!
We want the original data and the satellite logs and the phone and credit records of everybody who worked on the chart compilation.
- Status