.. or maybe not. UD Editors: Sev, the degree of credulity indicated by your comment is truly staggering. In response to an article about how all of the computer model predictions were off, you give us . . . wait for it . . . more computer model predictions. *palm forehead*Seversky
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
Please can someone explain this?
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/latest-from-the-greenland-meltdown/Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
WJM:
You're spot on in everything you say. Including no model that works. The only one that works is Lord Monckton's "simple model" that has changed the feedback formula.
We're very likely headed towards colder average temps. When their teeth are chattering on the East Coast, will DC change its tune? Not if money is changing hands.PaV
July 4, 2017
July
07
Jul
4
04
2017
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
GranvilleS:
And it is possible that the global warming alarmists might still prove to be right, in which case the public will think, see, we should never doubt the scientific consensus. And meanwhile Darwinism will still be nuts.
That warming takes place--or, better put, that it has taken place, and could take place in the future, is all very possible. IOW, the "alarmists" could be right by accident.
The two greatest sources of energy we know of are fission and fusion: that is, the earth's core, and the sun. As I see it, we ought to start there if we want to talk about warming.
A NASA scientist did a study in 2001 to see the effectsd on a climate model of CO2 in the stratoshphere, the CO2 + N2 combined, and then with CO2, N2, and H2O. The climate model--same one as used in the IPCC business--didn't match actual temperatures until the H2O was included.
Really, from a scientific point of view, that should have ended the debate. Yes, indeed, the debate is over. And, CO2 is not causing the warming. Warm water, leading to more water vapor, caused by increases in the earth's core, is the likely culprit.PaV
July 4, 2017
July
07
Jul
4
04
2017
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
ID advocates are skeptical about the demand for acceptance based on consensus, combined with the use of fear to override the need for a well presented and coherent case for human caused global warming. It's the same technique used to push Darwinism: scientific consensus and fear of ignorant, unscientific mob rule (creationists).
ID is about unmasking bad science, but also more generally about how scientific discussion should take place. Should science adopt an authoritarian disposition, forcing the view of a select minority of elites as the standard of rationality? Or should it make its case by cogent argument and widely accessible evidence?EricMH
July 4, 2017
July
07
Jul
4
04
2017
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
I understand why ID advocates tend to be skeptical of the global warming consensus: we are keenly aware of how it can happen that a very bad scientific idea can become the scientific consensus, for entirely philosophical or political reasons, using bullying techniques to suppress opposition. But I hate to see the two issues linked too closely in the layman's mind, because they are scientifically unrelated, and there are important differences. While you only need a little common sense to realize that Darwinism is nuts, it really does require some expertise in climate science to understand the global warming issues. And it is possible that the global warming alarmists might still prove to be right, in which case the public will think, see, we should never doubt the scientific consensus. And meanwhile Darwinism will still be nuts.Granville Sewell
July 4, 2017
July
07
Jul
4
04
2017
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Models? Perhaps models of how to best realize their corrupt, globalist, socialist wealth-redistribution, self-enrichment and industry-destroying desires. They never had a "climate" model, as far as I can tell - at least not one that ever got a prediction right.William J Murray
July 4, 2017
July
07
Jul
4
04
2017
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
EricMH
Donald Trump, a man distrusted by nearly every evangelical I know, won the election due to evangelicals. The reason was abortion, which as we all understand lies in the hands of the Supreme Court.
So yes, "rightists" do what they can. And that's not even considering crisis pregnancy centers, which now outnumber abortion clinics three to one.anthropic
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
This was published over 7 years ago:
Science has only just begun to understand how cyclical changes in the Sun affect Earth's weather and climate.
https://www.space.com/10187-sun-cycle-climate-change.html
BTW, in the original webpage it reads "effect" instead of "affect".Dionisio
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Leftist ideas are not the only wrong ideas. There are also wrong rightist ideas. For example, a standing militia and all the defense spending makes going to war a much more common occurrence than it should be, and much innocent life is lost. This is a more tragic example of the phemonenon I point out. Another example, the right correctly states abortion is murder, but does not carry out the action necessary to end abortion.EricMH
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
@EricMH - I think you leave out one important function of academia: To use confirmation bias, obfuscation of the truth, epistemological confusion, selection bias and a host of other questionable techniques to provide evidence that some ideas are TRUE, that anyone with just a lick of common sense or applied rationality would know are FALSE. Paraphrasing a well known radio commentator, "that is an idea so stupid, that you must have an advanced degree to believe it."
When college professors are able to find a twisted way to make the reasoning behind leftist ideas seems sound, they satisfy the need for many people to feel good about their ridiculous beliefs.JDH
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
This is my new theory of academia: it consists of trying to solve unsolvable problems in order to guarantee job security. Hence so much money thrown at string theory, artificial intelligence, climate change, cancer, etc.
But, academia is not the only realm where this happens... Pretty much any situation where one party asks another party to provide funds to solve a problem will necessarily result in funding unsolvable problems. Simply because all the solvable problems will eventually be solved, leaving the unsolvable problems.
Even more so when the funding authority both retains its job security by spending all its money, and has no restriction on the amount of money it pulls in.EricMH
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Plus, CO2s elimination is impossible. It's great to propose an unsolvable problem for funding.EricMH
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
EricMH @ 4
The Climate freaks picked CO2 because its elimination requires a HUGE and EXPENSIVE international bureaucracy.
AND it can be used to destroy American and European industry while letting the Chinese, Indians, etc., slide.
Climate Change was ALWAYS about money and power, the same way that Peak Oil and Zero Population were.
The West is evil and must be destroyed. This is why Liberals live.vmahuna
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
When will the modelers learn that "The map is not the territory" Korzybski.
Vividvividbleau
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
What I've never understood about the climate change hysteria is that CO2 only accounts for 4% of the green house effect. Water vapor is by far the greatest contributor at 95%. Forget carbon dioxide, dihydrogen oxide is indeed the greatest threat to our existence and we need to ban it post haste!EricMH
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur.
The models are a joke, but if I were to take them seriously, I would wonder why known differences invariably occur. Wouldn't modelers just make models that have the 'same phasing' as observations?
Andrewasauber
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
What is really amazing to me is how much obfuscating language they have to put in an abstract which essentially says, "We were wrong."JDH
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
And, Lord Moncthon, about four years ago, came out with a "simple" model using a simplified "forcing" equation, and, guess what, matched recorded temperatures.
Now, here's the kicker: without this "forcing" equation, CO2 has very little effect on climate at all.
Yes. It's the greatest scientific hoax in history.
But at least they have temperature recordings to tell them they're wrong. Evolutionists stick to their "epicycles."PaV