Flying Magazine Global Warning Article

cgrab

cgrab

Pattern Altitude
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
2,162
Location
Huntsville AL
Display Name
Display name:
cgrab
I forced myself to read the six pages of global warming crap by Scott Olsen. He is all over the place confusing climate and weather. He uses several quotes from the discredited IPCC or folks who use their data. While he does say there is a difference between weather and climate he uses instances of weather to make a case for "climate change." My favorite quote is from a NOAA researcher who says "I can't see a trend myself" but then goes on to say "people are talking about it" so it must be true.

For another viewpoint read Dr. Moore, the founder of Greenpeace:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
 
This should be in SZ as MMGW, or man made climate change as it is now conveniently called is purely, poltically/economically motivated. We are wasting so much time, energy, and money all for a hoax.
 
cgrab said:
I forced myself to read the six pages of global warming crap by Scott Olsen. He is all over the place confusing climate and weather. He uses several quotes from the discredited IPCC or folks who use their data. While he does say there is a difference between weather and climate he uses instances of weather to make a case for "climate change." My favorite quote is from a NOAA researcher who says "I can't see a trend myself" but then goes on to say "people are talking about it" so it must be true.

For another viewpoint read Dr. Moore, the founder of Greenpeace:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
Click to expand...
Just another useful idiot.
 
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-2010-stupid-predictions-from-first-earth-day


The article contains quotes from the first Earth Day. :lol:
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” • New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day


..... (more at the link)
Click to expand...
 
^^^^^Wow. Guess they had their PEER REVIEWS also.
 
cgrab said:
I forced myself to read the six pages of global warming crap by Scott Olsen. He is all over the place confusing climate and weather. He uses several quotes from the discredited IPCC or folks who use their data. While he does say there is a difference between weather and climate he uses instances of weather to make a case for "climate change." My favorite quote is from a NOAA researcher who says "I can't see a trend myself" but then goes on to say "people are talking about it" so it must be true.

For another viewpoint read Dr. Moore, the founder of Greenpeace:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
Click to expand...
Just another useful idiot.
 
Quantify - exactly - the solar & sunspot activity, etc and their affect upon earth's climate and we have something to talk about in regard to man made climate change.
Yeah, we don't know.
 
For me, just the title "climate change" used to replace "global warming" is silly. Anyone with an education understands that climate is and has always been in a constant state of change. Geological records show that the climate has made significant (to us) swings in temps all without human activity to influence it. In my mind it isn't a question of "if" the climate is changing, but rather "if" humans CAN impact that change, whatever it is.
 
Todd Copeland said:
For me, just the title "climate change" used to replace "global warming" is silly. Anyone with an education understands that climate is and has always been in a constant state of change. Geological records show that the climate has made significant (to us) swings in temps all without human activity to influence it. In my mind it isn't a question of "if" the climate is changing, but rather "if" humans CAN impact that change, whatever it is.
Click to expand...

Of course humans can impact the change. Deforestation of large portions of a continent will cause at least local temperature changes. Light off multiple nukes will have an impact (no pun).

The question is if humans can make a significant impact.
 
Bob Noel said:
Of course humans can impact the change. Deforestation of large portions of a continent will cause at least local temperature changes. Light off multiple nukes will have an impact (no pun).

The question is if humans can make a significant impact.
Click to expand...

I've always found it presumptuous, arrogant, and self-centered to believe that humans can have as large an impact on the planet as the climate change enthusiasts believe. We are merely a fly on an elephant's rear-end when it comes to the planet and it's natural systems.
 
Where I sit there used to be mile high glaciers. So is the climate changing. Yup. Did my 100LL cause it. Prolly not.
 
Todd Copeland said:
For me, just the title "climate change" used to replace "global warming" is silly. Anyone with an education understands that climate is and has always been in a constant state of change. Geological records show that the climate has made significant (to us) swings in temps all without human activity to influence it. In my mind it isn't a question of "if" the climate is changing, but rather "if" humans CAN impact that change, whatever it is.
Click to expand...

:yes:

Where I am sitting right now there was a 1,000' of ice as a glacier moved south and covered 2/3rds of N. America. It melted, and then did it again. :yes:
 
Sticking your head in the sand does not make it go away.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Edit:
Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Click to expand...

Of course the experts here on PoA are more credible...
 
Last edited:
John221us said:
Sticking your head in the sand does not make it go away.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Edit:


Of course the experts here on PoA are more credible...
Click to expand...

Ahhh government evidence.... yep, that's all I need to believe. I guess I need to pay someone to reverse the trend? That is after all, what it's about. Right?

BTW - keeping your head in your ass will have the same effect.
 
Last edited:
Here is the problem with NASA. See we used to send people to space but we don't do that anymore unless we are hitching a ride with countries that don't like us very much. This would also be the same NASA that in the words of their own chief administrator said:

"When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things," Bolden said in the interview which aired last week. "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."
Click to expand...

I thought it was all about space not relationships with particular people groups.

They are a government agency and therefore politically motivated. Not saying they are wrong just saying you have to look at their conclusions through the lens of politics.
 
John221us said:
Sticking your head in the sand does not make it go away.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Edit:


Of course the experts here on PoA are more credible...
Click to expand...
So do you think that the 3% of scientists that are brave enough to disagree should just sit down and shut up? Or should they just agree with the consensus because they are out numbered?

At what point may the scientists that disagree say so? Should they agree with the majority if it is only 90%? 75%?

Or, if only 1% disagree, does that make that 1% wrong? Do we decide major scientific events by a vote?

I sure hope that the climate change believers are wrong? But I'm not going to allow that hope to sway my opinion like so many other's do.
 
Scientific Consensus:
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

Science is NOT a consensus activity or entity
 
oldShar said:
Scientific Consensus:
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

Science is NOT a consensus activity or entity
Click to expand...

"Climate Scientist"


Meteorologists on the other hand are divided about 50/50. I believe that our local news chief meteorologist who has been in this role for 20 years or more does not buy into global warming.

Of course he would never make these views public as the ownership in that company is very, very left wing. Funny moment on air the other night when he was talking about storms, one of the anchors makes a comment about "only getting worse with global warming" and he makes a funny face and continutes talking like he heard nothing at all..
 
Last edited:
John221us said:
Sticking your head in the sand does not make it go away.

Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Click to expand...

Of course the experts here on PoA are more credible...
Click to expand...

That statistic has been bandied about for years. Who are these scientists that make up that ninety-seven percent? What are their fields of study? We are presently living in the period of time in which the global warming/climate change hypothesis predicted worldwide temperatures would be higher than we're experiencing. Is this evidence of a vast conspiracy among thermometers?

When I was in school, I learned that scientific method required that a hypothesis be tested by experimentation or observation to be proven. If the data indicated the hypothesis was flawed the hypothesis would be altered to fit the data. In 2009 it was learned that "scientists" of the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia altered the data in order to support the hypothesis.
 
roncachamp said:
That statistic has been bandied about for years. Who are these scientists that make up that ninety-seven percent? What are their fields of study? We are presently living in the period of time in which the global warming/climate change hypothesis predicted worldwide temperatures would be higher than we're experiencing. Is this evidence of a vast conspiracy among thermometers?

When I was in school, I learned that scientific method required that a hypothesis be tested by experimentation or observation to be proven. If the data indicated the hypothesis was flawed the hypothesis would be altered to fit the data. In 2009 it was learned that "scientists" of the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia altered the data in order to support the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Well the 97% of scientist who agree, aparrently don't agree.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

Also note that some of the scientist are PhD in Economics. :dunno:
 
My beef is with long term climate model predictions and the over the top alarmism from these imperfect incomplete models. Data that been "corrected" and adjustments make me concerned and of course HUGE holes in understandiing of climate drivers with big mysteries still like the "missing heat". How can any model long term prediction be trusted with any confidence to start preaching doom and gloom?

GIGO is in play here with those models.

The obvious exploition by politicians to use it all as an excuse to grab wallets, power and freedoms by whipping up fears and guilt as much as possible. Demonizing their political enemies, screaming "denier"! at skeptics and cooler heads. Calling people "For pollution" and anti-earth somehow if you question that CO2 is not a pollutant.
Of course the grand "consensus" is always invoked that your some kind of bible thumping anti-science rube if you are logically skeptical of the doomcasting. I've heard it all.

There are also positives that come with a warmer climate for some areas that of course nobody would dare to point out.

And of course, sudden climate change is real, it has happened many times in earth's history even recent history of the last few million years so my concern is adaption. We can't stop it at some point even if we we're utterly carbon neutral. So one way or the other we will be forced to adapt to it anyways.

I also think there are goals that serve everyone that go ignored because of alarmism's true agendas. Pursuing nuclear fusion solutions for instance.

As was said above, it's a massive distraction from higher priorities.
I honestly think it never should have left the lab so to speak to get everyone so damn worked up about it.
 
cgrab said:
I forced myself to read the six pages of global warming crap by Scott Olsen. He is all over the place confusing climate and weather. He uses several quotes from the discredited IPCC or folks who use their data. While he does say there is a difference between weather and climate he uses instances of weather to make a case for "climate change." My favorite quote is from a NOAA researcher who says "I can't see a trend myself" but then goes on to say "people are talking about it" so it must be true.

For another viewpoint read Dr. Moore, the founder of Greenpeace:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
Click to expand...

Dr. Moore received an honours B.Sc. in forest biology from the University of British Columbia and a Ph.D. in ecology from the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, in 1972.

Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a Vancouver-based consulting firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions, and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues. He is a frequent public speaker at meetings of industry associations, universities, and policy groups.

Dr. Moore is not a climate scientist or a meteorologist.
 
Mutts said:
My beef is with long term climate model predictions and the over the top alarmism from these imperfect incomplete models. Data that been "corrected" and adjustments make me concerned and of course HUGE holes in understandiing of climate drivers with big mysteries still like the "missing heat". How can any model long term prediction be trusted with any confidence to start preaching doom and gloom?

GIGO is in play here with those models.

The obvious exploition by politicians to use it all as an excuse to grab wallets, power and freedoms by whipping up fears and guilt as much as possible. Demonizing their political enemies, screaming "denier"! at skeptics and cooler heads. Calling people "For pollution" and anti-earth somehow if you question that CO2 is not a pollutant.
Of course the grand "consensus" is always invoked that your some kind of bible thumping anti-science rube if you are logically skeptical of the doomcasting. I've heard it all.

There are also positives that come with a warmer climate for some areas that of course nobody would dare to point out.

And of course, sudden climate change is real, it has happened many times in earth's history even recent history of the last few million years so my concern is adaption. We can't stop it at some point even if we we're utterly carbon neutral. So one way or the other we will be forced to adapt to it anyways.

I also think there are goals that serve everyone that go ignored because of alarmism's true agendas. Pursuing nuclear fusion solutions for instance.

As was said above, it's a massive distraction from higher priorities.
I honestly think it never should have left the lab so to speak to get everyone so damn worked up about it.
Click to expand...

Very well said, and it deserves to be repeated.
 
DFH65 said:
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-2010-stupid-predictions-from-first-earth-day


The article contains quotes from the first Earth Day. :lol:
Click to expand...

Global starvation has decreased, it is true. That does not mean that the original alarm was in error. It means that the original alarm was heeded. For example...

In 2003, African leaders made a historic pledge to increase their own investments in food security and agriculture-led growth through the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP). Since then, dozens of countries in Africa and beyond have been developing comprehensive agriculture development strategies. There is also increasing
engagement by foundations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. The United Nations High Level Task Force on Food Security is leveraging the combined strength of a number of UN organizations and Bretton Woods institutions. And in 2009, at the L’Aquila G8 Summit, donors committed more than $20 billion to support a renewed global effort. The summit not only catalyzed new financial commitments; it also brought a commitment for a new approach. The principles established at L’Aquila will be the same principles that guide this strategy:
1) Adopt a comprehensive approach to food security that focuses on advancing agriculture-led growth, reducing under-nutrition, and increasing the impact of humanitarian food assistance;
2) Invest in country-led plans;
3) Strengthen strategic coordination–globally, regionally, and locally;
4) Leverage the benefits of multilateral institutions; and
5) Deliver on a sustained and accountable commitment.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/130164.pdf
 
Anthony said:
Very well said, and it deserves to be repeated.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.

It's criticism from ignorance.

Yes, every model has the risk of GIGO, including (actually, especially, since it seems its proponents haven't done that analysis) the one that says humans don't affect climate. What, exactly, was the garbage in in this case? Without that, it's just denying the conclusion because you don't want it to be true. Valid criticism requires quite a lot more than that.

Modelers spend almost all their time validating their model and its inputs, and modifying both as observational data requires. It's the job. Not part of the job, the job itself.
 
oldShar said:
Scientific Consensus:
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

Science is NOT a consensus activity or entity
Click to expand...

Their jobs depend upon global warming to be true, therefore they proclaim it is. It's quite simple, really.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Dr. Moore received an honours B.Sc. in forest biology from the University of British Columbia and a Ph.D. in ecology from the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, in 1972.

Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a Vancouver-based consulting firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions, and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues. He is a frequent public speaker at meetings of industry associations, universities, and policy groups.

Dr. Moore is not a climate scientist or a meteorologist.
Click to expand...

But the good Dr gets paid to believe.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, it doesn't.

It's criticism from ignorance.

Yes, every model has the risk of GIGO, including (actually, especially, since it seems its proponents haven't done that analysis) the one that says humans don't affect climate. What, exactly, was the garbage in in this case? Without that, it's just denying the conclusion because you don't want it to be true. Valid criticism requires quite a lot more than that.

Modelers spend almost all their time validating their model and its inputs, and modifying both as observational data requires. It's the job. Not part of the job, the job itself.
Click to expand...

Criticism from ignorance? I do financial models for work. Very complex models, and I use data I have vetted, have back up sources for the date, and I list my assumptions clearly. I guarantee these climate models are using flawed data, and assumptions to get a preconceived outcome. The famous "hockey stick graph" is just one example of this unethical behavior. The mainstream media never discusses the flaws as they are a willing accomplice in driving the economic re-distribution agenda disguised as a planetary, environmental crisis.
 
roncachamp said:
That statistic has been bandied about for years. Who are these scientists that make up that ninety-seven percent? What are their fields of study? We are presently living in the period of time in which the global warming/climate change hypothesis predicted worldwide temperatures would be higher than we're experiencing. Is this evidence of a vast conspiracy among thermometers?

When I was in school, I learned that scientific method required that a hypothesis be tested by experimentation or observation to be proven. If the data indicated the hypothesis was flawed the hypothesis would be altered to fit the data. In 2009 it was learned that "scientists" of the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia altered the data in order to support the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

The list of names is too lengthy. Here are the associations:

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
Criticism from ignorance? I do financial models for work. Very complex models, and I use data I have vetted, have back up sources for the date, and I list my assumptions clearly. I guarantee these climate models are using flawed data, and assumptions to get a preconceived outcome. The famous "hockey stick graph" is just one example of this unethical behavior. The mainstream media never discusses the flaws as they are a willing accomplice in driving the economic re-distribution agenda disguised as a planetary, environmental crisis.
Click to expand...

Mainstream media?

Since when are they a scientific journal?

Irrelevant.

You claim to be a scientific modeler. Never mind that economics is not a science, but list for us the pedigree of the data that goes into the model that says humans are not responsible.

You personally guarantee the data is flawed? What data do you have to back that up? And its your personal guarantee, so it has to be YOUR data or you're speaking out of your butt.
 
mirage00 said:
Their jobs depend upon global warming to be true, therefore they proclaim it is. It's quite simple, really.
Click to expand...

There is no better boost for a scientist's career than to legitimately overturn conventional wisdom.

Einstein didn't win the Nobel Prize by repeating that light must be a wave, though that was the conventional wisdom at the time. Michelson started with an assumption that the speed of light worked like the speed of sound, and followed the data to determine it didn't, and won the Nobel prize for that, too. Hawking is well known because he proved that matter can, after all, escape a black hole. And so on. That's how science works.

This "follow the money" argument is nothing more than an attempt at character assassination by people who don't like the conclusions to be known. It happens in business and sometimes -- not always -- in government. Science is quite different from business in many respects. Only an idiot goes into science for the rather paltry money, and it's a pretty good bet an idiot won't be very good at it.
 
MAKG1 said:
Mainstream media?

Since when are they a scientific journal?

Irrelevant.

You claim to be a scientific modeler. Never mind that economics is not a science, but list for us the pedigree of the data that goes into the model that says humans are not responsible.

You personally guarantee the data is flawed? What data do you have to back that up? And its your personal guarantee, so it has to be YOUR data or you're speaking out of your butt.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the media were scientists, just promoting a lie to advance an agenda.

My point about economic modeling was just to show that outcomes of any analysis are greatly affected by often buried assumptions, and flawed data. In effect they "cooked the books" to get the outcomes they were paid to get by the government grants they took.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Click to expand...

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
 
MAKG1 said:
Yes, every model has the risk of GIGO, including (actually, especially, since it seems its proponents haven't done that analysis) the one that says humans don't affect climate. What, exactly, was the garbage in in this case? Without that, it's just denying the conclusion because you don't want it to be true. Valid criticism requires quite a lot more than that.

Modelers spend almost all their time validating their model and its inputs, and modifying both as observational data requires. It's the job. Not part of the job, the job itself.
Click to expand...

Here's the Garbage in that the IPCC uses in their models. They make it up!!!

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top