Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable
- Thread starter sheskunk
- Start date
kelly4
Well-Known Member
That is EXACTLY what your video said.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
It said cold weather can be caused by global warming.
Global warming doesn't = cooling. That's a facile argument that completely omits the entire point of what he said. Stop being purposefully dumb.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
So, since the Arctic gets warmer every year, Minnesota winters should get colder every year?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Aren't you the same person that used to shit your diapers? Why should I believe you can wear pants?
That is essentially the argument you just made..
kelly4
Well-Known Member
If science is never wrong...why were scientists wrong 40 years ago?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If someone in 1920 said "we're on the brink of an ice age", would science be wrong?
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
Scientists can be wrong.
Unfortunately, all of the data regarding global warming has gone through peer-review and experimentation. All of this is backed up by the actual observations.
Nice attempt at poisoning the well though. Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibu, right?
Wavels
Well-Known Member
When politcs is mingled with science bad things inevitably happen to those who try and mix the two...
One of the world's most eminent climate scientists - for several decades a warmist - has defected to the climate sceptic camp.
Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.
For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith - up to and including the belief that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.
But this week, he signalled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of Britain's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.
Though Bengtsson is trying to play down the significance of his shift - "I have always been a sceptic and I think that is what most scientists really are" he recently told Germany's Spiegel Online, denying that he had ever been an "alarmist" - his move to the GWPF is a calculated snub to the climate alarmist establishment.
"He's a big, big player. The biggest by far to change sides," says the GWPF's Benny Peiser. "What's particularly significant is that his speciality is climate modelling - and computer models, as you know, are at the heart of global warming theory. He is the most significant figure to admit, as many modellers are beginning to notice, that there is an increasing discrepancy between what the models predicted and what the real world data is actually telling us."
In his interview with Spiegel Online, Bengtsson said:
"I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened. So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show."
Bengtsson went on to reject another pillar of the warmist faith - the existence of a "consensus."
I have great respect for the scientific work that goes into the IPCC reports. But I see no need for the endeavour of the IPCC to achieve a consensus. I think it is essential that there are areas of society where a consensus cannot be enforced. Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless.
He believes that policymakers should be much more cautious in making decisions about the long-term future of climate when the facts are still imperfectly understood.
One of the world's most eminent climate scientists - for several decades a warmist - has defected to the climate sceptic camp.
Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.
For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith - up to and including the belief that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.
But this week, he signalled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of Britain's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.
Though Bengtsson is trying to play down the significance of his shift - "I have always been a sceptic and I think that is what most scientists really are" he recently told Germany's Spiegel Online, denying that he had ever been an "alarmist" - his move to the GWPF is a calculated snub to the climate alarmist establishment.
"He's a big, big player. The biggest by far to change sides," says the GWPF's Benny Peiser. "What's particularly significant is that his speciality is climate modelling - and computer models, as you know, are at the heart of global warming theory. He is the most significant figure to admit, as many modellers are beginning to notice, that there is an increasing discrepancy between what the models predicted and what the real world data is actually telling us."
In his interview with Spiegel Online, Bengtsson said:
"I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened. So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show."
Bengtsson went on to reject another pillar of the warmist faith - the existence of a "consensus."
I have great respect for the scientific work that goes into the IPCC reports. But I see no need for the endeavour of the IPCC to achieve a consensus. I think it is essential that there are areas of society where a consensus cannot be enforced. Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless.
He believes that policymakers should be much more cautious in making decisions about the long-term future of climate when the facts are still imperfectly understood.
I do not think it makes sense to think for our generation that we will solve the problems of the future – for the simple reason that we do not know future problems. Let us do a thought experiment and go back to May 1914: Let us try from the perspective of that point in time to make an action plan for the next hundred years – it would be pointless!
Lennart's is just the latest in a series of defections from the climate alarmist camp to the cause of realism.
Others include:
James Lovelock; English scientist; inventor of Gaia Theory; godfather of Green.
Formerly an arch-exponent of man-made climate doom theory, predicting as recently as 2007, that "billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic". Now admits: "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we did 20 years ago." Pro-nuclear; mildly pro-fracking; anti-wind farms.
Judith Curry - American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Though still a self-described "luke warmer", Curry was probably the most senior member of the warmist establishment - up until Bengtsson's defection - to fraternise with the enemy. This has earned her the badge of honour of being labelled "anti-science" by Michael Mann. In her blog Climate Etc she tries to encourage climate alarmists to show a sense of proportion and admit the limits of their knowledge. Of the National Climate Assessment report, she wrote:
Lennart's is just the latest in a series of defections from the climate alarmist camp to the cause of realism.
Others include:
James Lovelock; English scientist; inventor of Gaia Theory; godfather of Green.
Formerly an arch-exponent of man-made climate doom theory, predicting as recently as 2007, that "billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic". Now admits: "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we did 20 years ago." Pro-nuclear; mildly pro-fracking; anti-wind farms.
Judith Curry - American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Though still a self-described "luke warmer", Curry was probably the most senior member of the warmist establishment - up until Bengtsson's defection - to fraternise with the enemy. This has earned her the badge of honour of being labelled "anti-science" by Michael Mann. In her blog Climate Etc she tries to encourage climate alarmists to show a sense of proportion and admit the limits of their knowledge. Of the National Climate Assessment report, she wrote:
My main conclusion from reading the report is this: the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless. The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change.
Fritz Vahrenholt - German professor; environmental activist; one of the founders of the German green movement; former Environmental Senator of Hamburg.
Vahrenholt's climate-sceptical bestseller Die Kalte Sonne (translated as The Neglected Sun) sent shock waves through the German green movement. It earned him the title "eco-reactionary" from the left-liberal German media which was appalled at what they saw as his betrayal of the Cause. Vahrenholt argued that the sun - not CO2 - was the most significant driver of climate change; that predictions of man-made climate doom had been overdone; and that science had been corrupted by political indoctrination.
Sigmar Gabriel - German vice-chancellor; ex environment minister; formerly an enthusiast for green energy policy; now admits that Germany's Energiewende - its transition to renewables - has been pointless and destructive.
George Monbiot - humorist; Guardian scribe; environmental campaigner; scourge of climate sceptics; has since divided the green movement over his removal of theAtomkraft? Nein Danke sticker on the back of his florally-decorated VW Kombi and his decision that nuclear energy is, after all, the way forward. For this crime he is now beingharried by green campaigners who are offering a £100 reward to anyone prepared to arrest him for his "crimes against the environment and humanity."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/08/Leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus
There is no valid pure science supporting the politically motivated bogeyman of ACC.
Fritz Vahrenholt - German professor; environmental activist; one of the founders of the German green movement; former Environmental Senator of Hamburg.
Vahrenholt's climate-sceptical bestseller Die Kalte Sonne (translated as The Neglected Sun) sent shock waves through the German green movement. It earned him the title "eco-reactionary" from the left-liberal German media which was appalled at what they saw as his betrayal of the Cause. Vahrenholt argued that the sun - not CO2 - was the most significant driver of climate change; that predictions of man-made climate doom had been overdone; and that science had been corrupted by political indoctrination.
Sigmar Gabriel - German vice-chancellor; ex environment minister; formerly an enthusiast for green energy policy; now admits that Germany's Energiewende - its transition to renewables - has been pointless and destructive.
George Monbiot - humorist; Guardian scribe; environmental campaigner; scourge of climate sceptics; has since divided the green movement over his removal of theAtomkraft? Nein Danke sticker on the back of his florally-decorated VW Kombi and his decision that nuclear energy is, after all, the way forward. For this crime he is now beingharried by green campaigners who are offering a £100 reward to anyone prepared to arrest him for his "crimes against the environment and humanity."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/08/Leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus
There is no valid pure science supporting the politically motivated bogeyman of ACC.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
No, just like science isn't wrong now.
But, what you are saying is that scientists could be wrong, correct?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Yes
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Pure science has left the building a very long time ago.
Now it is incumbent upon those who profess a belief in the pseudo science of ACC, or more recently, referred to as ACD, as to why Mankind is more powerful than natural cycles in the potential to disrupt the harmony we enjoy currently?
Pure piffle and politics on parade.
Now it is incumbent upon those who profess a belief in the pseudo science of ACC, or more recently, referred to as ACD, as to why Mankind is more powerful than natural cycles in the potential to disrupt the harmony we enjoy currently?
Pure piffle and politics on parade.
Last edited:
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Doer
Well-Known Member
We just don't know in chaos theory what effect our very minds may have on all this. And there are on going experiments in global attention, that have produced some very odd results in random number generators.
Hard to swallow? Not for me. This all is all Self, to me. If we are affecting reality in ways unknown, then indeed we could be the prime effector of what we call the REAL.
Then we are fucked.
"...(the universe)... may be more complicated than we can understand." Albert Einstein
Hard to swallow? Not for me. This all is all Self, to me. If we are affecting reality in ways unknown, then indeed we could be the prime effector of what we call the REAL.
Then we are fucked.
"...(the universe)... may be more complicated than we can understand." Albert Einstein
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So much fail in this..
You don't understand what pseudoscience is
Nobody is saying mankind is more powerful than nature. You fail to understand how everything works because instead of actually learning about how it works, you read bullshit propaganda. That's not the argument, never has been.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Sorry that I disagree vehemently...politics has tarnished this foolish debate even before ALGORES extremely facile, dopey and fallacious Inconvenient Truth was published.
Straight downhill from there as far as any science is concerned.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well don't get too big for your britches. We may be seeing warming but, there are but tenuous links to the very concept of man-made.
If there was proof it would not be Politics.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
is that what the heartland institute told ya?
make sure to give your pregnant wife some cigarettes, they'll help the baby get a nice, healthy glow fresh out of the womb!