This is also not true, and hasn't been true for, literally, centuries. It's a grade-school understanding of "science".In the realm of empirical science, if you want to say "I have proven anthropogenic global warming" you have to be able to make a PRECISE mathematical prediction.
“…the whole trouble lies here. In words, words. Each one of us has within him a whole world of things, each man of us his own special world. And how can we ever come to an understanding if I put in the words I utter the sense and value of things as I see them; while you who listen to me must inevitably translate them according to the conception of things each one of you has within himself. We think we understand each other, but we never really do.”
I'm going to ignore this and the post before as possibly not having seen my warning, but don't continue this conversation. --Sunshine
Last edited by Sunshine; 2013-01-14 at 06:59 PM.
More seriously though it's not a question of belief but evidence and that takes time to collect, especially when dealing with something as complicated as the climate. There's just no way to really know yet whether any perceived warming is human induced or part of some larger natural cycle. The planet has been both colder AND warmer in prehistory.
Last edited by Sunshine; 2013-01-14 at 07:03 PM.
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.
I don't think that tax policy revolving around subsidies can be called tyranny, by the majority or minority.
I'm merely saying that policies of this nature cause resentment, with no real benefit environmentally. Add in the green job flops left and right on the news... There has to be a better way.
---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 02:08 PM ----------
-Sorry. I'll take an infraction if necessary, but to leave a common misconception on the table seemed untenable.Infracted; I'm not kidding. --Sunshine
We either reduce the CO2, or we find something to hedge/neutralize it in the atmosphere. Those are the two options. There is no better way, the programs will have to affect everyone on this planet, or nature will affects our lifestyles a lot harder than any CO2 reduction program would entail.
Some people don't seem to understand that global warming doesn't mean the temperature will rise in every part of the planet equally. And how saying 'welp, here in the Netherlands it's still freezing so nope, global warming doesn't exist!' is a fallacy.
Especially in Europe, that argument is of no value whatsoever, since one of the predicted effects of global warming (have no source at hand as of right now) is, as an example, the disruption of the Gulf Stream which brings hot air from the Carribean to Western-Central Europe. Global warming might actually bring a freakish European Ice Age, doesn't mean the expression 'GLOBAL warming' is false.
And I'm sure the Gulf Stream example isn't the only one out there.
1957- warmest year on record til '96. Fact. '97 to 2012- no discernible rise in temps. Fact. Many actually argue after '96, temps fall. Fact. In August of 2012, the meteorlogical Office in Great Britain released a report of the collected findings of three-thousand meteorlogical research units placed around the globe. This data shows NO temperature change over that period. Fact.
And Endus, I've read your posts, I like your style, but being in the field is a logical fallacy. But I do like how you present your arguments; I wish others on here had your decorum.
AGW acolytes also use a lot of "correlation = causation" arguments. NO flooded not because of "Global Warming". It flooded because it was beneath sea level when they built it, and it has stayed there ever since. Also, it flooded because of a cascade of stupid management and politics within its own government. They didn't reinforce their levees even though they'd been given millions of dollars to reinforce them.It's why Katrina flooded New Orleans
No - they don't. That is simply a perception that is based on a couple of faulty reports that have been repeatedly debunked. The truth is that these so-called 'consensuses' are based on very dodgy, highly questionable secondary sourcing essays which had to be compiled in very specific ways so as to eliminate all the "scientists" who disagreed. When you throw out the 100,000+ scientists who disagree with you and refuse to acknowledge them, then it's awfully easy to focus on the 9,000 scientists who you DO say are "scientists" and say that only 6% disagree with you. See how that works?Scientists say that AGCC is real
And that's where the whole "97% consensus" myth came from. The author hand-picks a bunch of (surprise!) "climatologists". Many of these guys don't have PhDs or even Masters, but are really just undergrads writing thesis, or are ancillary workers in tangental fields to the climate (IE activists) who all agree with exactly what the author wants. They throw out the bulk of other real scientists, and then claim an imaginary consensus. How convenient. At the risk of playing duelling-websites, here's an interesting paper showing exactly how the trick is achieved... Doubtless the character of the speaker will be attacked, rather than the reality and accuracy of his data, but that's what the issue has come to - sadly.
I've seen the IPCC data, the NOAA data, and reports, studies, and the SAPs (stat analysis plans) of many others. The data is junk. They routinely overweight human C02 emissions in their models, while completely ignoring or underweighting other known variables - many of which are far more powerful. You know - stuff like land cover, oceanic currents, El-nino/nina events, solar radiation, cloud cover, rain, water vapor - all those insignificant factors that get swept under the carpet in a typical stats model.Focus on the science
As a professional statistician, it is quite annoying to see the routine abuse my profession has to suffer through because of the politicization of this subject. Whenever you put together a statistical model, you have to justify the nature of its construction. If you weight a variable strongly, there must be a valid statistical reason for doing so. In every report I've read to date, the model artificially inflates the C02 variable while artificially minimizing (or eliminating) other more potent variables. And the reason for it? Well - so far all I've been able to see is ... ??? because the model just DOES it and never bothers justifying the underlying assumption.
When an analysis does that, the resulting conclusions are junk. Period.
Last edited by The Riddler; 2013-01-14 at 07:37 PM.
Yes, the levees were failing, but if Katrina's storm surge hadn't been a record-breaker, they'd have been fine.
In short, yes, because of global climate change. Storm surges are one of the most critical factors to consider in the short term, here. Same thing that hit New York during Sandy, and for the same reasons.