|
Post by IB DaMann on Oct 22, 2014 18:23:57 GMT
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."
If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 22, 2014 21:08:38 GMT
Don't you get it? Global Warming (natural variation) is out of control (static). All ice is melting (growing), and if we don't spend (waste) money on alternative (inefficient) energy....The seas will rise, rivers will dry, fires will consume the earth (er.....) This is far too serious (lol) to ignore, just think. ..If we do nothing...what then? What....then?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 22, 2014 21:47:58 GMT
Don't you get it? Global Warming (natural variation) is out of control (static). All ice is melting (growing), and if we don't spend (waste) money on alternative (inefficient) energy....The seas will rise, rivers will dry, fires will consume the earth (er.....) This is far too serious (lol) to ignore, just think. ..If we do nothing...what then? What....then? ... and it's worse than we thought. ... and more research is required. .... oh, and unprecedented.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 23, 2014 0:12:12 GMT
Don't you get it? Global Warming (natural variation) is out of control (static). All ice is melting (growing), and if we don't spend (waste) money on alternative (inefficient) energy....The seas will rise, rivers will dry, fires will consume the earth (er.....) This is far too serious (lol) to ignore, just think. ..If we do nothing...what then? What....then? ... and it's worse than we thought. ... and more research is required. .... oh, and unprecedented. More research DOLLARS are required to confirm our certainty. We wouldn't want to waste money on solution when the research is far from complete. But we are certain, certain I say.
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Oct 23, 2014 13:20:43 GMT
NOTHING BUT A LIE. . .
I've long suspected that the rats would start jumping ship once it became clear that Alarmists would lose total control of both houses of Congress. Now that this is becoming increasingly likely, the rats are leaping.
Jumping Ship: USS Climate Change Sinking
In this article, the co-founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, takes on the inaccuracies of global warming theory, insisting the theory of man-made climate change is "no longer scientifically credible."
In all fairness to Mr. Coleman, he is not really a rat, jumping ship from the American Meteorological Society in 2007 over the issue of Global Warming.
However, looking at national politics around the world, and Congressional races in the US, it doesn't look to me like there is much of a "consensus" on taking action to combat global warming. So far Australia, Canada, and Japan are bailing on the idea of an international treaty. Germany has given up on the idea of a binding treaty and is opting for the "coalition of the willing" approach.
President Obama is rapidly retreating from his global warming "redline" as an increasing number of his decreasing congressional allies sacrifice their global warming stances in favor of re-election politics. Democratic politicians seem to be embracing global warming as closely as they're embracing Barack Obama and ebola.
My prediction is that when the realities of congressional funding begin sinking in, Academia will prove to be just as fickle on the global warming issue as is the world community and as are Democratic politicians.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 23, 2014 16:54:13 GMT
We can only hope the Democrats get up to speed on current pause research.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 23, 2014 22:39:25 GMT
We can only hope the Democrats get up to speed on current pause research. There are politicians with far far too much financial exposure to drops in ETS values, changes in 'Carbon Floor Pricing' and so on. Some of them could bankrupt themselves. I fear this is why Osborne - the UK Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, set such a stupid carbon floor price - many of the politicians have their pensions tied firmly to the mast of the green industries and carbon trading boondoggles. If they go down the pols are bust, so I do not expect them to back out with any speed. The sensible investors will be shorting green energy and associated ponzi schemes.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Oct 25, 2014 12:25:43 GMT
Don't you get it? Global Warming (natural variation) is out of control (static). All ice is melting (growing), and if we don't spend (waste) money on alternative (inefficient) energy....The seas will rise, rivers will dry, fires will consume the earth (er.....) This is far too serious (lol) to ignore, just think. ..If we do nothing...what then? What....then? ... and it's worse than we thought. ... and more research is required. .... oh, and unprecedented. ... and we must act NOW or it might already be TOO LATE! ...since China and India are the big villains, it's the US' moral obligation to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 25, 2014 14:38:41 GMT
I never realized just how much AGW sounds like a $19.95 commercial.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2014 14:44:32 GMT
And all this lack of warming now 7 years into Solarcycle 24, 2 years into the peak, and probably about a year before beginning the plunge to solar minimum!!!
Foster and Rahmstorf 2012 strongly suggested that solar and ENSO had overridden AGW. Heck they were probably right!!!
The big problem though is they wrote that piece after 4 years of solar minimum and in a period of La Nina dominance. Now several years into the highest solar activity we are likely to see in this cycle and a year into El Nino dominance, and on the heels of a "Super El Nino" (Yes I know that officially there is no El Nino but we are in the middle of ocean effects on the west coast associated with Super El Ninos); Foster and Rahmstorf 2012 is no longer a reaffirmation of AGW but instead the solar and El Nino influence explains climate better without AGW.
Of course these numbskulls will never update their work as they are either too stupid or too corrupt to see what should be obvious to them
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 25, 2014 23:01:39 GMT
[ Snip ] Of course these numbskulls will never update their work as they are either too stupid or too corrupt to see what should be obvious to them There's no need to hold back Icefisher.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Oct 27, 2014 13:05:16 GMT
So it's apparently agreed that no one is aware of any falsifiable Global Warming model and therefore unaware of any Global Warming science.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Apr 11, 2015 8:55:33 GMT
The Church Of Climate Scientology: How Climate Science Became A Religion"How do we protect ourselves against such abuses of science? By knowing the one key difference between real scientists and science abusers. Science abusers treat science as an infallible authority to be blindly obeyed by the public. Real scientists treat science as a method to be carefully explained to the public. By this standard, today’s vaunted “climate science consensus”—that it’s been scientifically proven that we need to dismantle the fossil fuel industry, the economic engine of the world—is more Scientology than science."
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Apr 12, 2015 14:26:42 GMT
So it's apparently agreed that no one is aware of any falsifiable Global Warming model and therefore unaware of any Global Warming science. Agreed. Although Graywolf may have a different opinion...
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 12, 2015 16:20:25 GMT
So it's apparently agreed that no one is aware of any falsifiable Global Warming model and therefore unaware of any Global Warming science. You could try the model here that was written by Willie Soon and Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and others
Abstract
Abstract An irreducibly simple climate-sensitivity model is designed to empower even non-specialists to research the question how much global warming we may cause. In 1990, the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed ‘‘substantial confidence’’ that near-term global warming would occur twice as fast as subsequent observation. Given rising CO2 concentration, few models predicted no warming since 2001. Between the pre-final and published drafts of the Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC cut its near-term warming projection substantially, substituting ‘‘expert assessment’’ for models’ near-term predictions. Yet its long-range predictions remain unaltered. The model indicates that IPCC’s reduction of the feedback sum from 1.9 to 1.5 W m-2 K-1 mandates a reduction from 3.2 to 2.2 K in its central climate-sensitivity estimate; that, since feedbacks are likely to be net-negative, a better estimate is 1.0 K; that there is no unrealized global warming in the pipeline; that global warming this century will be <1 K;
|
|