Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, clearly you are exposing yourself to a diversity of ideas and inputs. If in addition to that, you really do try your best to think for yourself, who can ask for more?
Apparently the temperature data in South America, Canada and Siberia regions have been methodically adjusted by the scientists supporting the AGW alarmism movement.
I agree. And of course this is not the first time with this sort of thing either.
Now to show that I am not an inflexible and closed-minded ideologue on this subject, as some people around here appear to be, let me say that I believe that the Earth's climate has changed and is changing, the Earth has warmed, depending on when you start your measurements, and man has very likely made some contribution to our world's climate.
Then again, the Sun is emmensely powerful and influential on our planet, the core of our planet is hotter than most people realize and even small changes in things like the wobble in the Earth's orbit can cause remarkably large changes in our climate. And ofccourse natural climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years now, non-stop, without the assistance of humans to help it along.
So, trying to keep an open mind and weighing all of this fairly, not just being defensively doctrinaire, I find myself being skeptical about the degree of alarmism promoted by the advocates of the AGW alarmism hypothesis, which seems to me to be a bit over the top; and I am more than skeptical about their promotion of the left's standard economic agenda of increased taxes, massive redistributions of wealth (but not necessarily to the poor, as usual), huge increases in regulations and more government control, with - yes, you guessed it - the left presiding, as the core of the supposed solution to this whole mess.
Call me a skeptic about the left's agenda here, because I am. But I am open-minded about what is happening in our world and what is both desirable AND undesirable to do in an effort to try and make things better.
Scientists are not always right and not everything the government does makes things better. Can we at least agree about these two points?
Climate was never completely stable, BUT there has been a relative stability in the climate for about 10,000 years. This is probably why we have civilization and 7 billion people instead of a few hundred thousand people scavenging the corpses of dead animals.
I would say that the biggest reason that no real action has been taken to stop natural climate change is because no serious natural threats have been identified.
Historically, glaciation has taken thousands of years to turn an interglacial period into a glacial period. It would be relatively easy to reverse-- the problem is that as of now it would be impossible to predict just how MUCH you would be reversing the trend.
Similarly, natural warming happens at a much more gradual pace than AGW... it occurs more quickly than glaciation or cooling, but still takes thousands of years.
Barring some horrible catastrophe like an asteroid impact or some wildly unpredictable solar phenomenon, natural climate change isn't a threat at all... even if we do nothing about it, its gradual pace gives us plenty of time to adapt. AGW doesn't give us that luxury.
Except for that pesky mini ice age that lasted 5 centuries.
Call me a skeptic about the left's agenda here, because I am. But I am open minded about what is happening in our world and what is desirable and undesirable to do in an effort to try and make things better.
Largely that is where I'm coming from as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
Scientists are not always right and not everything the government does makes things better. Can we at least agree about these two points?
The farther you get away from politics the better the quality of science. I come from a well educated background and so I'm more inclined to trust most science than not. However I also come from a religiously fanatical background and I see that in the AGW's activities. So if we for the sake of a meaningful discussion not argue about weather or not the books are being cooked then we can get somewhere. (If they are being cooked then it will come out down the road.)
Nope science is not always correct. And the government makes messes of things all the time.
If you look at resonant circuits in electrical engineering they have a positive feedback loop. The climate has a positive feedback loop with ice. More ice drives larger swings. Less drives smaller swings. So none should make it more stable. This is why I say warmer is better.
NASA either knows this and is knowingly lying or is ignorant of it and is demonstrating their lack of reliability by their negligent promotion of lies on this topic. In either case, they are not a reliable or trustworthy source on this subject.
With the death of big ideas like manned space flight, moon colonies, space stations the size of Hawaiian resorts and the like NASA had to find a way to keep the money rolling in.
So wait-- because the models didn't predict the 'slowdown', it means that CO2 is incapable of causing climate change? Do you have any idea how little sense that makes?
The scientific method proceeds by creating hypotheses which are then tested against the real world. In this case the scientists decided to test their hypotheses by creating a model that would predict future warming if their hypotheses are correct. When the real world data disagrees with model, as is the case today, then there is a problem. The problem could be with the original hypothesis, or it could be the model doesn't accurately portray the hypothesis, or both.
Do you have any idea how ignorant it is to continue to insist that AGW is a proven fact when the real world data doesn't agree with the hypotheses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
It has already CAUSED climate change. It has done so throughout Earth's history and has been the dominant driver of warming since at least the 50s.
So says the hypothesis that has been shown over the past years to not be a good predictor of the real world, hence it is likely the hypothesis is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
If the models are wrong, then it's probably because of some other factors that haven't been taken into account... it doesn't mean that 100 years of climate science need to be thrown in the trash and everything we thought we knew about CO2 and the atmosphere is wrong.
It does mean that until and unless the hypothesis and/or model are corrected to reflect the data collected in the real world there is good reason to be skeptical about whether the hypothesis and/or model are correct. People such as yourself who continue to insist blindly that AGW is a proven fact are operating in the plane of faith, not science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
The scientific method has nothing to do with whether or not the models disprove the theory of manmade climate change. Basic logic and understanding the meaning of words don't require any scientific background whatsoever.
You seem to have a comprehension problem. I am suggesting that the proper application of the scientific method would cause someone to begin to have some doubts about the theory as the trajectory of temperatures continues to diverge from the models. Those that have no doubts at this point are not dealing with reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
url=http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_data_and_products.php]Climate Data and Data Related Products | WMO[/url]
If you have an issue with the 30 year averages, take it up with the WMO.
There is nothing in the link that justifies why 30 years, and only 30 years, is the right time period to evaluate climate averages. Because the WMO sells 30 year data sets are 20 years of data meaningless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
The OPs post is a fallacy and you agree with it because you like what it has to say, not because you actually have any understanding of science or AGW. Then you have the nerve to pretend that you're in any position to lecture anyone about the scientific method. How rational is that?
I understand the scientific method very well my friend.
PS What has been tghe climate change over the past 12,000 years?
No SUV's back then
When you people can place climate so called change into proper context over the history of climate since 10,000 BC, perhaps you can convince me.
Betcha no AGW true believers can.
What little ice age? There was no real ice age....NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 and 1850....At most there was modest cooling (less than 0.5 degree Celsius lower than 20th century average) of the Northern Hemisphere during this period.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
