Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 3
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:45:39 PM EDT
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Breaking News: This forum learns about the scientific method.

Scientific method is formulating your best guess on the avaliable data.

When you encounter new data and figure out you're wrong, you admit your mistake.


I mean, isn't that life in general?
When you find fault in your conclusion based on new evidence, do you modify your theory or opinion or supposed to dig your heels in and fight harder out of pride?
View Quote

There's the rub. Or is this one of those "rules for thee but not for me" things?
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:46:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

was going to say temps have more or less not increased at all where models showed we should be bbq by now.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

was going to say temps have more or less not increased at all where models showed we should be bbq by now.


This was in my OP:

The models say the tropical warming rate should have been nearly 3 times larger than the observations show – “0.389 ± 0.173°C per decade (models) and 0.142 ± 0.115°C per decade (observed)” – due to the assumed feedback response to CO2 forcing over warm regions. Instead, there is a “clear and significant tendency on the part of the models to overstate warming.”


The 0.142 per decade seems consistent with the satellite temp data, which it is probably based on. The (fudged) surface data shows a bit more warming (of course).
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:47:15 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Breaking News: This forum learns about the scientific method.

Scientific method is formulating your best guess/theory on the available data.

When you encounter new data and figure out you're wrong, you admit your mistake.


I mean, isn't that life in general?
When you find fault in your conclusion based on new evidence, do you modify your theory or opinion or supposed to dig your heels in and fight harder out of pride?
View Quote


Climate science isn't about the scientific method.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:49:38 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

There's the rub. Or is this one of those "rules for thee but not for me" things?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Breaking News: This forum learns about the scientific method.

Scientific method is formulating your best guess on the avaliable data.

When you encounter new data and figure out you're wrong, you admit your mistake.


I mean, isn't that life in general?
When you find fault in your conclusion based on new evidence, do you modify your theory or opinion or supposed to dig your heels in and fight harder out of pride?

There's the rub. Or is this one of those "rules for thee but not for me" things?


Scientist have egos, it's human nature.

Many of them spend their entire lives trying to poke holes in established theories.

There was a thread here a few months back discussing "Scientific Fact" which isn't even a real thing.

You take a science 101 class in high school, that's discussed the very first day.

Everything is a theory that's constantly evolving based on new data.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:49:38 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

The key there being completely useless, what's that one model that does appear to align with observed values?
View Quote


I zoomed in and it's hard to tell since many have similar colors.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:52:05 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Scientist have egos, it's human nature.

Many of them spend their entire lives trying to poke holes in established theories.

There was a thread here a few months back discussing "Scientific Fact" which isn't even a real thing.

Everything is a theory that's constantly evolving based on new data.
View Quote


It has ceased to be science and become "The Science".

It's manipulated because of politics.

This book is a good overview into that:

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798

It seems to me Koonin pulled punches and was very . . . polite . . . to appeal to leftists who are the ones that need to read it. By contrast, someone like Lindzen doesn't suffer fools.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:16:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Basically what KeithJ was saying years ago.
View Quote


KeithJ knew his shit.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:18:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


KeithJ knew his shit.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Basically what KeithJ was saying years ago.


KeithJ knew his shit.


To be honest I don't recall what his argument was. At the time I hadn't looked into the issue in any serious way.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:29:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Jordan talked about Climate change with a guy a couple of weeks ago.  Fairly good conversation.  Wasn't really anything new brought up though.

“The Elites Have Completely Flipped Worldviews” | Scott Tinker | EP 419
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:41:22 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Jordan talked about Climate change with a guy a couple of weeks ago.  Fairly good conversation.  Wasn't really anything new brought up though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp_k47uS2DA
View Quote


He's done multiple interviews on climate change. I recommend the one with Richard Lindzen.

I think he also had Koonin on.

There is a real good interview done by some media character of Lindzen and a Canadian scientist. They were presented various NASA videos on climate change and tore them down. I don't think the Canadian was a "denier" (smear of those who don't toe the line), but his views were pretty much in line with Lindzen. I think the goal of the interview was to have the two scientists at odds, but that really didn't happen. They did approach answers a bit differently, and deferred to each other on their area of expertise.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:44:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
lol so you are saying people aren't smart enough to properly create a model of the entire earth with completely accurate thermodynamic physics which can accurately predict the future at all?

shocking
View Quote

Buncha dumbasses.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:48:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
And yet, observed temperatures are higher than most of the models predicted.

All models are wrong. That doesn't mean they aren't useful. That has implications far beyond this subject. Even direct human experience is an incomplete model of reality.

It isn't news to anyone that humidity doesn't rise with temperature as much in a desert as it does elsewhere, or that climate models don't attempt to predict humidity in particular places. Water vapor is a condensable gas, modeling a global average may produce a more meaningful result.

When you cherry-pick studies or datasets that seem to support your presuppositions you only mislead yourself.
View Quote


It has been a long time since I really dug into this but as I recall actual temperatures have been lower than almost all models, thus they are always manipulating temperature measurements and models to try to make things fit.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:50:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Climate science isn't about the scientific method.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Breaking News: This forum learns about the scientific method.

Scientific method is formulating your best guess/theory on the available data.

When you encounter new data and figure out you're wrong, you admit your mistake.


I mean, isn't that life in general?
When you find fault in your conclusion based on new evidence, do you modify your theory or opinion or supposed to dig your heels in and fight harder out of pride?


Climate science isn't about the scientific method.


It certainly isn’t, it is more akin to religion.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:50:16 PM EDT
[#14]
Does this mean the science isn't settled?

Maybe they should give it another two weeks to flatten ot the curve.

Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:54:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


To be honest I don't recall what his argument was. At the time I hadn't looked into the issue in any serious way.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Basically what KeithJ was saying years ago.


KeithJ knew his shit.


To be honest I don't recall what his argument was. At the time I hadn't looked into the issue in any serious way.


The long and short was that water vapor was not being taken into account nearly enough and that CO2 was being over emphasized. CO2 is a short term signal, water vapor is a long term signal. He said it was analogous to the fluctuations of solar activity within the broader solar cycle.(can't recall if he ever incorporated solar activity into his reasoning, from what I recall he mostly discussed water vapor and CO2)

Models weighted heavily towards CO2 would indicate a higher temperature increase and that the disparity between those models and observed temperatures would increase over time.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:55:26 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Breaking News: This forum learns about the scientific method.

Scientific method is formulating your best guess/theory on the available data.

When you encounter new data and figure out you're wrong, you admit your mistake.


I mean, isn't that life in general?
When you find fault in your conclusion based on new evidence, do you modify your theory or opinion or supposed to dig your heels in and fight harder out of pride?
View Quote
Don't pull the scientific method out now.  That's what the rest of us were using the entire time the world was screeching "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!"
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:58:35 PM EDT
[#17]
No shit the planet is 70% covers by water.

So now we need to drain the oceans?
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 5:59:36 PM EDT
[#18]
clear and significant tendency on the part of the models to overstate warming.
View Quote

Not a bug, but a feature.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:02:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Scientist have egos, it's human nature.

Many of them spend their entire lives trying to poke holes in established theories.

There was a thread here a few months back discussing "Scientific Fact" which isn't even a real thing.

You take a science 101 class in high school, that's discussed the very first day.

Everything is a theory that's constantly evolving based on new data.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Breaking News: This forum learns about the scientific method.

Scientific method is formulating your best guess on the avaliable data.

When you encounter new data and figure out you're wrong, you admit your mistake.


I mean, isn't that life in general?
When you find fault in your conclusion based on new evidence, do you modify your theory or opinion or supposed to dig your heels in and fight harder out of pride?

There's the rub. Or is this one of those "rules for thee but not for me" things?


Scientist have egos, it's human nature.

Many of them spend their entire lives trying to poke holes in established theories.

There was a thread here a few months back discussing "Scientific Fact" which isn't even a real thing.

You take a science 101 class in high school, that's discussed the very first day.

Everything is a theory that's constantly evolving based on new data.

All of this is true, however, it is very obvious that the issue of “climate change” has left science and entered the realm of the political.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:04:21 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Scientist have egos, it's human nature.

Many of them spend their entire lives trying to poke holes in established theories.

There was a thread here a few months back discussing "Scientific Fact" which isn't even a real thing.

You take a science 101 class in high school, that's discussed the very first day.

Everything is a theory that's constantly evolving based on new data.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Breaking News: This forum learns about the scientific method.

Scientific method is formulating your best guess on the avaliable data.

When you encounter new data and figure out you're wrong, you admit your mistake.


I mean, isn't that life in general?
When you find fault in your conclusion based on new evidence, do you modify your theory or opinion or supposed to dig your heels in and fight harder out of pride?

There's the rub. Or is this one of those "rules for thee but not for me" things?


Scientist have egos, it's human nature.

Many of them spend their entire lives trying to poke holes in established theories.

There was a thread here a few months back discussing "Scientific Fact" which isn't even a real thing.

You take a science 101 class in high school, that's discussed the very first day.

Everything is a theory that's constantly evolving based on new data.

No sir, per the climate change acolytes, that particular discipline of science is in fact settled. Which I understand to mean they've learned all the is to learn and there isn't any more to learn. The problem with that, of course, is that anything which contradicts said settled science is wrong and must be either shunned/ignored or drowned out. Note how there will be no change whatsoever in the narrative of how we humans are destroying the planet, except perhaps an increase in tempo and intensity.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:05:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Scientist have egos, it's human nature.

Many of them spend their entire lives trying to poke holes in established theories.

There was a thread here a few months back discussing "Scientific Fact" which isn't even a real thing.

You take a science 101 class in high school, that's discussed the very first day.

Everything is a theory that's constantly evolving based on new data.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Breaking News: This forum learns about the scientific method.

Scientific method is formulating your best guess on the avaliable data.

When you encounter new data and figure out you're wrong, you admit your mistake.


I mean, isn't that life in general?
When you find fault in your conclusion based on new evidence, do you modify your theory or opinion or supposed to dig your heels in and fight harder out of pride?

There's the rub. Or is this one of those "rules for thee but not for me" things?


Scientist have egos, it's human nature.

Many of them spend their entire lives trying to poke holes in established theories.

There was a thread here a few months back discussing "Scientific Fact" which isn't even a real thing.

You take a science 101 class in high school, that's discussed the very first day.

Everything is a theory that's constantly evolving based on new data.

LOL.  It's not about their egos, it's their agendas.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:06:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


KeithJ knew his shit.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Basically what KeithJ was saying years ago.


KeithJ knew his shit.

KeithJ, please come back.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:11:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:17:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History



Anything that refers to things as "climate denialism" is highly biased itself. I would definitely not trust that "fact check" site at all.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:26:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
And yet, observed temperatures are higher than most of the models predicted.
View Quote


Nope.  Never happened.

Every prediction of the IPCC or other major AGW zealots has been wildly off.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:33:38 PM EDT
[#26]
"Studies" are also done to achieve an intended outcome.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:34:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


Oh no!  A fact checker!  Don't worry, this guy is probably the honest one, not like every other...

Watt publishes thousands of scientific articles and papers.  He authors a few.  Read the papers for yourself and then decide.

And watch the AGW vs anti-AGW debates.  Oops, there aren't any.  AGW zealots don't debate.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:34:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Hold up.

They said the SCIENSES WERE SETTLESED.

“clear and significant tendency on the part of the models to overstate warming."

You motherfuckers...
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:41:54 PM EDT
[#29]
You mean global warming , global cooling acid rain and the impending ice age that is 40 years past due are all bullshit ? Color me shocked.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:46:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


Typical leftist fact checking.

Anyone reading watts up with that knows it is dedicated to challenging global warming scaremongering. But they were just pointing out several scientific studies.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:52:36 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
And watch the AGW vs anti-AGW debates.  Oops, there aren't any.  AGW zealots don't debate.
View Quote


@jwnc

Not 100% true. Three tried to debate Koonin:

https://co2coalition.org/news/dr-steve-koonin-three-debates-three-wins/

Their problem is that Koonin is an establishment type figure, and was in the Obama administration. He's a problem for them, and I think that forced their hand.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:53:26 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Nope.  Never happened.

Every prediction of the IPCC or other major AGW zealots has been wildly off.
View Quote


The last thread we were all in together was all about how temperatures were way above expectations and the same posters who're agreeing with you now were saying it was because of Core heat or stratospheric water vapor or sunspots...

I've gone back and looked at early IPCC reports and found them fairly accurate. Older projections are surprisingly accurate if you back out CFCs from pre-Montreal models. I could cherry-pick a dozen charts (or just pick one that isn't even relevant to the point but looks like it is) but that wouldn't get us anywhere either.

Hanson from 1981:

Link Posted: 2/21/2024 6:55:54 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The last thread we were all in together was all about how temperatures were way above expectations and the same posters who're agreeing with you now were saying it was because of Core heat or stratospheric water vapor or sunspots...

I've gone back and looked at early IPCC reports and found them fairly accurate. Older projections are surprisingly accurate if you back out CFCs from pre-Montreal models. I could cherry-pick a dozen charts (or just pick one that isn't even relevant to the point but looks like it is) but that wouldn't get us anywhere either.

Hanson from 1981:

https://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen81_comparison-1.png
View Quote


The pink line is pure garbage.

The black smooth lines are too smooth to be anything but simplistic models. If simplistic models in 1980 were so good why are the current computer models such crap?

Actual warming since 1979 per satellite data is about 0.6 C.

Land data is adjusted and only represents discrete inputs that are not well distributed.

Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:04:53 PM EDT
[#34]
What would be weird AF? If the Climate NEVER changed.

So ~Climate Change~ is an extremely sophomoric title for this "important" science. The third attempt even, to name this global tax/ guilt. In the 70's it was the impending ice age  The 90's Global Warming.  Then after proving the scientists and experts don't know WTF is happening to the point of another re-brand, they plopped this whisker biscuit of a "Scientific Title" at our feet.

A science that needs millennia of solar cycle research, other types stellar phenomena, and hundreds of years of accurate and stationary weather data collection within the Earth's atmosphere.

At that point we can begin, in earnest, to understand all mechanisms at play. It is a leap of faith to believe that man has achieved mastery over celestial bodies, so much so, a diagnosis that "IT is OUR fault!" drips from the gaping mouths of "scientists " and their benefactors and sycophants.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:07:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
What would be weird AF? If the Climate NEVER changed.

So ~Climate Change~ is an extremely sophomoric title for this "important" science. The third attempt even, to name this global tax/ guilt. In the 70's it was the impending ice age  The 90's Global Warming.  Then after proving the scientists and experts don't know WTF is happening to the point of another re-brand, they plopped this whisker biscuit of a "Scientific Title" at our feet.

A science that needs millennia of solar cycle research, other types stellar phenomena, and hundreds of years of accurate and stationary weather data collection within the Earth's atmosphere.

At that point we can begin, in earnest, to understand all mechanisms at play. It is a leap of faith to believe that man has achieved mastery over celestial bodies, so much so, a diagnosis that "IT is OUR fault!" drips from the gaping mouths of "scientists " and their benefactors and sycophants.
View Quote


Scientists were calling it climate change back in the 70s.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:08:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
snip
When you cherry-pick studies or datasets that seem to support your presuppositions you only mislead yourself and 97% of climate scientists and Al Gore and Democrats.
View Quote


FIFY
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:11:54 PM EDT
[#37]
One sign of a truly intellectually honest person is acknowledgement that he DOESN'T know a lot more than he DOES know.

Does that sound like any "climate change expert" presented by mainstream media?

Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:19:12 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Breaking News: This forum learns about the scientific method.

Scientific method is formulating your best guess/theory on the available data.

When you encounter new data and figure out you're wrong, you admit your mistake.


I mean, isn't that life in general?
When you find fault in your conclusion based on new evidence, do you modify your theory or opinion or supposed to dig your heels in and fight harder out of pride?
View Quote

That's great until "the science" is presented as absolute fact and used to fuck the economy, influence an election and threaten the jobs of thousands of people if they don't trust the science.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:22:15 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The last thread we were all in together was all about how temperatures were way above expectations and the same posters who're agreeing with you now were saying it was because of Core heat or stratospheric water vapor or sunspots...

I've gone back and looked at early IPCC reports and found them fairly accurate. Older projections are surprisingly accurate if you back out CFCs from pre-Montreal models. I could cherry-pick a dozen charts (or just pick one that isn't even relevant to the point but looks like it is) but that wouldn't get us anywhere either.

Hanson from 1981:

https://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen81_comparison-1.png
View Quote

So no citations and a failed chart from 1981.  Got it.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:24:15 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Scientists were calling it climate change back in the 70s.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
What would be weird AF? If the Climate NEVER changed.

So ~Climate Change~ is an extremely sophomoric title for this "important" science. The third attempt even, to name this global tax/ guilt. In the 70's it was the impending ice age  The 90's Global Warming.  Then after proving the scientists and experts don't know WTF is happening to the point of another re-brand, they plopped this whisker biscuit of a "Scientific Title" at our feet.

A science that needs millennia of solar cycle research, other types stellar phenomena, and hundreds of years of accurate and stationary weather data collection within the Earth's atmosphere.

At that point we can begin, in earnest, to understand all mechanisms at play. It is a leap of faith to believe that man has achieved mastery over celestial bodies, so much so, a diagnosis that "IT is OUR fault!" drips from the gaping mouths of "scientists " and their benefactors and sycophants.


Scientists were calling it climate change back in the 70s.
Oh I am sure there were: those that lacked conviction. The fence riders.

Still in essence saying water is wet. Not committing to the damning details.

Sophmoric

The big story would be if we discovered that the planet Earth's climate never changed.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:31:34 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Oh I am sure there were: those that lacked conviction. The fence riders.

Still in essence saying water is wet. Not committing to the damning details.

Sophmoric

The big story would be if we discovered that the planet Earth's climate never changed.
View Quote


It's actually changed little. It's like 0.14 C per decade since 1979, which you couldn't detect except with instrumentation. We only know there's global warming because of instruments, not anything you experience in your normal life.

Artic melt is due to the process of Atlantification, something discovered only recently and it's not due to "climate change" (the process started to soon for that to be a cause).

Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:34:32 PM EDT
[#42]
What is the reputation and credibility of PNAS as a scientific organization? Are they an organization that can be easily dismissed?
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:47:02 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


It's actually changed little. It's like 0.14 C per decade since 1979, which you couldn't detect except with instrumentation. We only know there's global warming because of instruments, not anything you experience in your normal life.

Artic melt is due to the process of Atlantification, something discovered only recently and it's not due to "climate change" (the process started to soon for that to be a cause).

View Quote

Sample size too small to be relevant. Definitely too small to determine cause.

That leads us to motivation.

Global problems require global solutions, after all.

Unintended Consequences? : The creation of yet another alarmist doomsday cult. A tale as old as Chicken Little, leaps of faith included free of charge.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:50:24 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
What is the reputation and credibility of PNAS as a scientific organization? Are they an organization that can be easily dismissed?
View Quote


This is the article:

https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.coecis.cornell.edu/dist/f/423/files/2023/12/simpson23pnas.pdf

PNAS looks very mainstream and establishment. They seem to support the global warming narrative generally, it's just that this paper contradicts the models. So something of a self own.

Also, consider that climate science is very political, they use peer review and publishing to help set the narrative. This was part of the climategate release, which showed some of the methods climate science activists used to control the narrative. You won't make it in climate science in the institutions if you don't support the narrative. Two editors who published papers by Lindzen were fired. Judith Curry had to go into the private sector since her establishment career was destroyed (someone like Michael Mann wouldn't be able to make that jump since he has nothing to offer in the private sector).
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 7:58:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

And watch the AGW vs anti-AGW debates.  Oops, there aren't any.  AGW zealots don't debate.
View Quote
That is because AGW is pseudo religion bordering on cultism
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 8:05:26 PM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That is because AGW is pseudo religion bordering on cultism
View Quote


@SouthHoof

There actually were three debates involving Koonin:

https://co2coalition.org/news/dr-steve-koonin-three-debates-three-wins/







You can see why they don't like to debate.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 8:06:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


To be honest I don't recall what his argument was. At the time I hadn't looked into the issue in any serious way.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Basically what KeithJ was saying years ago.


KeithJ knew his shit.


To be honest I don't recall what his argument was. At the time I hadn't looked into the issue in any serious way.



I miss his input, dude was smart
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 8:15:57 PM EDT
[#48]
Logically, human activities probably do have some sort of negative effect on our environments, but the real problem is finding an honest answer as to how much, what causes the most issues, and what can be done.

Real science starts with a question, the work is done, and an answer is found, and stands until it is disproven.  In climate science, and some others, it starts with an answer, then the questions and science are performed to try and match that answer.   Real science wants to be challenged, in order to have a continuous improvement of our understanding.  Science that refuses to be challenged should be viewed with a high level of suspicion.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 8:17:18 PM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Breaking News: This forum learns about the scientific method.

Scientific method is formulating your best guess/theory on the available data.

When you encounter new data and figure out you're wrong, you admit your mistake.


I mean, isn't that life in general?
When you find fault in your conclusion based on new evidence, do you modify your theory or opinion or supposed to dig your heels in and fight harder out of pride?
View Quote


It's uncanny how every time you post it is in defense of some Marxist grift or propaganda.

Something like 10 years ago, a whole bunch of respected scientists wrote a letter to the scientific community that pointed out numerous flaws in their climate model assumptions and methods.  It's not like they've been earnestly doing everything they can to get it right, and **JUST NOW** someone figured out their model isn't working lol.

I don't think the accepted models even account for localized surface heating ("urban heat islands") which has a much higher and more easily provable impact on temperatures than any other weather or climate phenomenon.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 8:24:44 PM EDT
[#50]
We broke a record temp this summer that was set in the 1880s. What made it so hot in the 1880s? Sure
wasn't petroleum.
Page / 3
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top