╌>

Climate Change: Where is the Science?

  

Category:  Environment/Climate

Via:  xxjefferson51  •  9 years ago  •  21 comments

Climate Change: Where is the Science?
Is it twice as likely that the Earth is cooling than that it is warming? That humans and fossil fuels have nothing, or everything to do with it, or somewhere in between? Or is it over 99% certain that anthropogenic carbon burning-induced warming is sweeping us to the apocalypse, with all other possibilities combined being less than one percent probable?The only way to find out is through the most rigorous and critical application of the scientific method, from laboratory practice to public discourse. Anything less than that increases the risk that the 'solution' could be more catastrophic to humans than the results of climate change itself.Let us examine what the climate change alarm community has done and how they have done it, and see if it qualifies as the rigorous and unimpeachable science that its proponents claim it is. We'll walk it back from results to first principles.First, results. Nothing defines science so well in the popular mind than the predictive power of scientific theory. "If the conditions, materials and/or forces A, B, C, and D come together in such-and-such a way, then the outcome WILL BE 6.7294874X. If variables P, Q, and R are substituted for A, C, and D, then the outcome will be 2.1 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol in combustion." Awesome.So, how is that predictive power working out so far? And more to the point, what effect have those results had on the public's confidence in the supposedly infallible science and scientists? In 1999 they said that warming would wipe out the Great Barrier Reef. In 2000 they said that Britain would no longer see snow during winter. In 2001 they predicted starvation from failing grain crops in India. From 2003 to 2005 they concluded that the drought then occurring in Australia would be permanent and Sydney dwellers would have nothing to drink. In 2006 they predicted unprecedented severe cyclones and hurricanes. In 2008 they said that by 2013 there would be no more arctic ice cap; that we would be swimming with the otters at the North Pole.None of these predictions have come to pass. The Reef is still there, as is the arctic ice. Children make more snowmen than ever in Britain and the rains returned to Australia with a vengeance. Thanks to the instantaneous and ubiquitous communications made possible by our smartphones and social networking, there is much greater awareness of the severe weather events that do occur than there was before, but in absolute terms, such events are neither more frequent nor more severe than they have always been.The climate computer models have demonstrated themselves to have no reliable predictive power. The mother of all predictions, that global warming was inexorable, has been debunked by the past seventeen years of actual measurement, sending the climate change community into a mad scramble to explain it, deny it, 'correct' the earlier data, explain why it doesn't disprove their theories, or explain it away.Even so, none of this proves that global warming isn't happening or won't happen, or that excess carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning won't send us over the brink, right? Of course not -- how do you prove a negative? But the persistence of politicians with a vested interest insisting that Climate Change is a greater threat to humanity than ISIS, Iran, North Korea, unemployment, burning American cities and negative economic growth combined, in spite of the failures of any of the predictions to come true, suggests that something is wrong at a deeper level with the way we are practicing and discussing science.Scientists, strictly defined, should have no agenda whatsoever other than the discovery of truth; truth of which no human being is the ultimate arbiter, but only Nature. Albert Einstein famously did not want his theory of Relativity accepted until its predictive power had been proven. Scientists who have come to believe that a certain theory is closer to the truth than any known alternatives have the right, indeed the duty, to defend that theory against any and all challenges. But the true scientist must always, without exception, maintain intellectual honesty and be prepared to abandon a theory if its predictive power cannot explain empirical data that does not fit and/or when a rival theory that seems to do a better job of explaining the subject phenomena (often in simpler terms) arises. Skepticism and openness to change and to challenge is the fundamentalist creed of the true scientist.Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/climate_change_where_is_the_science.html#ixzz3clMDiXm7 Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    9 years ago
The climate change alarm scientists have lost credibility because too many of them have behaved not as scientists but as politicians. They will regain the trust of the people when they rediscover their principles and comport themselves accordingly, to wit:They debate each other honestly and respectfully, including the skeptics and 'deniers', with no recourse to ad hominem attacks or defamation lawsuits.Instead of firing, defunding and/or persecuting scientists with whom they disagree, they advocate for funding for research into alternate theories by those same rival scientists on a comparable scale as their own results-oriented research.They express their honest scientific opinions in terms of relative probabilities. '100% certainty' in a matter as complex as the entire Earth's climate for the next hundred years should be looked upon with the utmost suspicion.They rebuke any and all meteorologists or news readers who ascribe any significance whatsoever to transient local weather events as proof, or even evidence, of anthropomorphic climate change.They discontinue all scare tactics and sensationalism, and stick to objective reporting of measurement and rational hypotheses.They discontinue hiding behind consensus or authority, and instead demonstrate the courage of their facts, logic, and the track record of their predictions over the long term.They stop papering over the differences of opinion within the alarm community in order to present a unified public front; keep the discussion transparent.They publicly disclaim any among them who make anti-scientific claims such as that "the debate is over" or "the science is settled". Yes, that means Al Gore and anyone else. Anyone asserting such a preposterous thing should take the statement to its logical conclusion by resigning his or her position and/or returning any unspent research grant money and forswearing any continuance of the same. If the world is round not flat, we don't need to fund research and deploy hardware to ascertain the shape of the earth. If the debate is over, then go home.In short, we will restore to them the trust and respect to which science and scientists aspire when they demonstrate that they are worthy of it.Lay persons are easily intimidated from taking on scientists on their turf. But when supposed scientists behave anti-scientifically and demand that we surrender our civil liberties, our private property rights and our prosperity, that's our turf. Giving up the cheapest and most plentiful energy sources available (fossil fuels and nuclear, the latter which does not contribute to greenhouse gasses) can cause a great deal of poverty, hunger and death by exposure to the hostile elements of a poorly understood climate.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy    9 years ago
"Climate change" isn't a theory, it's a religion. It's not falsifiable. No matter what happens wIth the weather, it's always evidence of climate change.
 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    9 years ago
Exactly. Whether it cools or warms it's still climate change. It's like the climate of the 1970s was perfection and all deviation from that is bad. It's silly really.
 
 
 
Que
Freshman Silent
link   Que    9 years ago

Here is an article showing the "hiatus" in global warming is a myth: ...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    9 years ago
We disagree with it because it's a hoax and a fraud perpetrated by greenshirts to control others economic choices and curtail individual freedom.
 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    9 years ago
There is solar activity from the sun that changes cyclically and causes changes to the climate. No one denies that. I am surprised someone revived a month old seed. Of course in the category its seeded in it might be near the top there.
 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    9 years ago
Solar activity has played a big role in climate over the last millenia.
 
 
 
ArkansasHermit
Freshman Silent
link   ArkansasHermit    9 years ago

Here is an article showing the "hiatus" in global warming is a myth

And here's an article showing how the big oil companies knew their product was a major contributor to climate change back in the 80's but decided to take a page out of Big Tobacco's play book and deny how their product was having such an adverse impact, in their pursuit of profit.

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981 , email says but it funded deniers for 27 more years

ExxonMobil, the worlds biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firms own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

The email from Exxons in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change , and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia, Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxons former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2, or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change .

However, Exxons public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.

Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.

Some climate campaigners have likened the industry to the conduct of the tobacco industry which for decades resisted the evidence that smoking causes cance

 
 
 
Que
Freshman Silent
link   Que    9 years ago

Solar irradiance has a large effect on the Earth because of Milankovic cycles. It's effect during the last millennia has been only a minor factor in the Earth's warming. The irradiance increased slightly until about 1960 and has been declining since. Surely the current warming trend is not from the sun. A discussion of this is in the article:

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy    9 years ago

It's amazing how supposedly objective data can constantly be reinterpreted until the desired result is found. Just keep changing the past until it looks "right."

Can we "reinterpret" the satellite readings as well? Funny how they used to be the gold standard for measuring global temperatures, until of course, the numbers didn't show what they were supposed to.

 
 
 
Que
Freshman Silent
link   Que    9 years ago

There is no evidence that the Earth is cooling, and both the theory and any reasonable extrapolation of the empirical evidence shows that the Earth will only get warmer in the future. Here's an article which contains much of the scientific evidence:

There are about and hundred articles on the same website which explains the science of global warming, why the skeptics claims are wrong, and why the scientists are right. If you want to know where the science is, you might try reading a few of those, starting with the earlier ones which explain the basic theories.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    9 years ago
So are we going to warm our way into a global ice age like in the movie "Day After Tomorrow"?
 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober    9 years ago

There is no evidence that the Earth is cooling

which proves what ?

both the theory and any reasonable extrapolation of the empirical evidence shows that the Earth will only get warmer in the future.

You use words but they are political words not scientific ones : 1] "reasonable" (according to you ?)

"extrapolation of the empirical evidence" (Extrapolation is a dangerous statistical method & should only be utilized when you know almost all of the factors )

why the scientists are right.

So ... doing science by consensus is now the gold standard ? Consensus is NOT science . It's just a popularity contest . Here is an example of actual climate science :

 
 
 
Que
Freshman Silent
link   Que    9 years ago

Zharkova did not compare the magnitudes.

Georg Feulner,deputy chair of the Earth system analysis research domain at the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, co-authored a paper in 2011 specifically examining the effect a solar minimum might have on Earths climate. His paper, and subsequent related researchhas concluded that any solar-related temperature drops would be far outweighed by human-caused global warming . In the case of a solar minimum, such as the one predicted by Zharkova and colleagues,The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1C at most, compared to about 1.3C warming since pre-industrial times by the year 2030, Feulnerwrote in an e-mail to the Post.

Complicating the matter further is the ideathat the 17th centurys little ice age wasnt even really the result of the solar minimum going on at the time. Feulner also authored another 2011 paper that concluded that volcanic activity was the major cause of a cooler climate during this time, rather than solar variations. The takeaway is that changes in solar radiation are unlikely to hold a candle to the climatic effects being brought about by human-related greenhouse gas emissions.

 
 
 
Que
Freshman Silent
link   Que    9 years ago

Aw! You are just bedeviling us since you want it HOT.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober    9 years ago

Thanks for the link . I'll be happy to discuss its implications at length if you post that comment in my article :

...

rather than in this old back dated article .

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    9 years ago
Too bad the climate change advocates and global warming believers make no direct comment trying to show where and how the initial seeded article is not correct. All they have is talking points and other articles.
 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober    9 years ago

Do not feed the blockhead ...

 
 
 
Que
Freshman Silent
link   Que    9 years ago

Zharkova'sprediction that the solar energy will decline is not incorrect. The implications that it will cause another Ice Age is certainly incorrect, as shown by the article and the references in the article.

The effect of the decreasing energy from the sun was already well-known to climate scientists, and the magnitude of the decline over the next few decades has been shown to be be very small in comparison to the warming caused by greenhouse gas increases. According to the Milankovic cycles, the Earth should be slowly cooling for the next 20,000 years, but it is not - because of the greenhouse effect.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    9 years ago
And that mini ice age that's supposed to happen around 2030 to 2040-45 isn't going to happen?
 
 
 
Que
Freshman Silent
link   Que    9 years ago

Zharkova'sscientific paperdid not predict a mini Ice Age, but just a decline in the solar radiation.A nuclear war could cause a nuclear winter, or a cataclysmic volcanic eruption could send us into another Ice Age, but those things are certainly not predictable.

 
 

Who is online




428 visitors