Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist

[Gd5150]

C'mon, I know you can do better.  The article originator and its sources failed to demonstrate credentials, experience, or research histories that would support them as experts in climate but when that happens you just need to hop back up on the horse again.  Dismissive comments only show an internal bias but I welcome objective arguments that will challenge my belief system.

Agreed we can only believe those articles and opinions which pass peer review. Those peers being objective scientists who pursued specialized careers in the new science of climatology. People who clearly had no agenda when they decided to major in climatology when they went to college. Just average folk who couldn't decide between the generic majors like liberal arts, business or the impact of man on the environmental studies. Preferably from respected objective campus like UC Berkeley.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

C'mon, I know you can do better. 

No, he really can't.

[Yorkshire pud]

Agreed we can only believe those articles and opinions which pass peer review. Those peers being objective scientists who pursued specialized careers in the new science of climatology. People who clearly had no agenda when they decided to major in climatology when they went to college. Just average folk who couldn't decide between the generic majors like liberal arts, business or the impact of man on the environmental studies. Preferably from respected objective campus like UC Berkeley.

Jeeze, I wish science was that simple; I'd have a PhD in at least three disciplines by now. Maybe something in anthropology, Higher mathematics and mechanical/electrical engineering. I'll start tomorrow.

[MagnificentBastard]

Agreed we can only believe those articles and opinions which pass peer review. Those peers being objective scientists who pursued specialized careers in the new science of climatology. People who clearly had no agenda when they decided to major in climatology when they went to college. Just average folk who couldn't decide between the generic majors like liberal arts, business or the impact of man on the environmental studies. Preferably from respected objective campus like UC Berkeley.

And here's the basis for every Republican view- Learnin is liberal!

Peer review? Obviously some trick by the liberal majority to silence the retar. . .republican minority.  Scientists don't agree with the view a Republican has gleaned from right wing talk radio? well then, obviously those scientists can't be trusted. Odd as it may sound, GD's post is filled with nothing but repetition of nonsensical talking points the Republican party/media prepares for their barking sheep. In his head, he just knocked one out of the park. In his head, he's turning the bases, fist pumping and the crowd roaring when the rest of us are thinking "man, seventh grade must have really kicked his ass".

[albrecht]

And herearnin is liberal!

Peer review? Obviously some trick by the liberal majority to silence the retar. . .republican minority.  Scientists don't agree with the view a Republican has gleaned from right wing talk radio? well then, obviously those scientists can't be trusted. Odd as it may sound, GD's post is filled with nothing but repetition of nonsensical talking points the Republican party/media prepares for their barking sheep. In his head, he just knocked one out of the park. In his head, he's turning the bases, fist pumping and the crowd roaring when the rest of us are thinking "man, seventh grade must have really kicked his ass".

Just one of many articles about the problems in peer-review. Properly done it is worthwhile but not the be all end all of science or experiments, particularly depending on the "peers" and who is funding them also.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

[PB the Deplorable]

And here's the basis for every Republican view- Learnin is liberal!

Peer review? Obviously some trick by the liberal majority to silence the retar. . .republican minority.  Scientists don't agree with the view a Republican has gleaned from right wing talk radio? well then, obviously those scientists can't be trusted. Odd as it may sound, GD's post is filled with nothing but repetition of nonsensical talking points the Republican party/media prepares for their barking sheep. In his head, he just knocked one out of the park. In his head, he's turning the bases, fist pumping and the crowd roaring when the rest of us are thinking "man, seventh grade must have really kicked his ass".

Where does Al Gore's expertise fit on the spectrum of science and scientists?

If we are talking about the Scientific Method, why aren't their predictions based on their hypothesis accurate?  That is what we are talking about when we invoke 'Science', isn't it - the Scientific Method?

Why have we gone from Global Cooling to Global Warming to Climate 'Change' to Climate 'Disruption'?  Doesn't sound like science at all, let alone 'Settled Science'

The reality is, this is all speculation from the same people who are always against industrialization, who are always in favor of more taxes and bigger government.

[albrecht]

Where does Al Gore's expertise fit on the spectrum of science and scientists?

If we are talking about the Scientific Method, why aren't their predictions based on their hypothesis accurate?  That is what we are talking about when we invoke 'Science', isn't it - the Scientific Method?

Why have we gone from Global Cooling to Global Warming to Climate 'Change' to Climate 'Disruption'?  Doesn't sound like science at all, let alone 'Settled Science'

The reality is, this is all speculation from the same people who are always against industrialization, who are always in favor of more taxes and bigger government.

I think it is important to always use "junior" when talking the warming guy. If not for his dad he would having websites like Stan Deyo and the other doomsayers. But oil companies, big tobacco, a private education and politcal patronage meant that Jr could go big with his version "end of the world" stuff. Born to another family less rich and connected he would be a caller, maybe a guest, on a bad C2C show about "end times."

[SciFiAuthor]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

"The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science." - Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University.

As if anyone with any sense needed proof...

Hey Karl, let's do an experiment. Easily the boldest claim I've ever seen was made recently by a company. Lockheed Martin promises a commercial compact fusion reactor within ten years:

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

It's Lockheed Martin Skunkworks, not some start-up company in South Korea. Chances are they will give us our fusion reactor. But if you look closely, it's one hell of a fusion reactor. It's only the size of a bus, but is promised to produce 100 MW of power. That's over three times what New York City uses during peak usage. In other words, we have a high likelihood of the energy crisis being over in less than ten years. Stunning. Super-clean, limitless energy within ten years. You'd think this would be the ultimate wet dream of liberals.

But I'll bet it's not. So let's do an experiment. I think they will protest it increasingly as Lockheed's plan  gets closer to fruition. I think they know it will be protested, which is why they've been so secretive about development up until now, and they're projecting a five year time frame for a prototype because that's too short of a time for protest groups to come up with a coherent ideology and plan to try to sink it. I think liberals actually want to shrink human endeavor to save the environment from our growth and limitless energy only enables that growth, and the climate change debacle is a part of a greater environmentalist motive to hold humanity back and save the whales. It's simply a more complex form of 1980's environmental goals, if you want to save the earth, then you have to hold humans back, and the only way to do that is to concoct a pressing, urgent issue to get everyone to stop expanding our civilization. That's ultimately what climate change ideology aims to do. So let's make a mental note of today, and discuss it when they start protesting and bitching about fusion energy. It's already happening with ITER, but I'm pretty sure it will be a much bigger issue pretty soon.

[Gd5150]

Some who've already applied the scientific method to the climatologists predictions have made their accurate assessments using the scientific method. The theories were tested, again and again and always failed every single time. Thats the beauty of science. The predictions were made in the 70's, and 80's, and 90's, and 2000's. They failed. Again. And again. And again. The title of the "movement" was changed again and again always keeping the same solution. More government intervention.

The global cooling, warming, ozone hole, change, disruption,  movement doesn't even't bother with predictions anymore because they've been wrong every time so open minded educated people have stopped listening. Now you have the wishful thinking left-winger lemmings who hold onto all hope something, anything, might happen to support their desired actions of "more government intervention", unfortauntely its too little too late. The movement went down the drain 10 years ago. The lying was proven, the emails were leaked, the data was rigged, and there is no science behind the political movement. Their last pathetic vestige of evidence is so-called "consensus" which is neither evidence or science.

[Yorkshire pud]

Some who've already applied the scientific method to the climatologists predictions have made their accurate assessments using the scientific method. The theories were tested, again and again and always failed every single time. Thats the beauty of science. The predictions were made in the 70's, and 80's, and 90's, and 2000's. They failed. Again. And again. And again. The title of the "movement" was changed again and again always keeping the same solution. More government intervention.

The global cooling, warming, ozone hole, change, disruption,  movement doesn't even't bother with predictions anymore because they've been wrong every time so open minded educated people have stopped listening. Now you have the wishful thinking left-winger lemmings who hold onto all hope something, anything, might happen to support their desired actions of "more government intervention", unfortauntely its too little too late. The movement went down the drain 10 years ago. The lying was proven, the emails were leaked, the data was rigged, and there is no science behind the political movement. Their last pathetic vestige of evidence is so-called "consensus" which is neither evidence or science.

I wish someone had told you gently when you were a child to keep quiet and let others think you're a fool, rather than say something and leave no doubt. Your post is simply a transcript from Alex Jones. And he really hasn't a clue.

[PB the Deplorable]

I wish someone had told you gently when you were a child to keep quiet and let others think you're a fool, rather than say something and leave no doubt. Your post is simply a transcript from Alex Jones. And he really hasn't a clue.

And the last gasp.  Name calling.

[Yorkshire pud]

Where does Al Gore's expertise fit on the spectrum of science and scientists?

He doesn't. Scientists don't think he does, why would non scientists?

If we are talking about the Scientific Method, why aren't their predictions based on their hypothesis accurate?  That is what we are talking about when we invoke 'Science', isn't it - the Scientific Method?

You know the difference between a hypothesis and a prediction don't you? Prediction is only used if the method has been shown to be accurate, repeatable and consistent. The first person who predicted that 2+2=4 only did so after hypothesising then proving 2+2=4. If 2+2=7 then either the initial formula was wrong or the conclusion because the experiment hadn't been conducted correctly.

Observation-Hypothesis-experiment-observation-conclusion-review-experiment-repeat-conclusion. I could do a flow chart but even the anti science brigade can add 2 and 2.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.[4] Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias. Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made.

Why have we gone from Global Cooling to Global Warming to Climate 'Change' to Climate 'Disruption'?  Doesn't sound like science at all, let alone 'Settled Science'

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/08/bergen_county_scientist_who_co.html

But take no notice of him, he's only written 470 scientific papers. Alex Jones knows far more, certainly. 

The reality is, this is all speculation from the same people who are always against industrialization, who are always in favor of more taxes and bigger government.

Yeah, because scientists don't get employed by industry. Oh hang on, they do... Chemical engineers, Biologists, metallurgists, fluid dynamic engineers, geologists, aerodynamisists, nano strutural engineers...etc etc......

[analog kid]

Some who've already applied the scientific method to the climatologists predictions have made their accurate assessments using the scientific method. The theories were tested, again and again and always failed every single time. Thats the beauty of science. The predictions were made in the 70's, and 80's, and 90's, and 2000's. They failed. Again. And again. And again.

A climate prediction made in the 70s is still relevant in 2014. Just like bloodletting is still relevant to modern medicine, and steam locomotion is still relevant to transportation. I'd like to see a citation for that first claim though.

[FightTheFuture]

Very interesting clip


http://youtu.be/C35pasCr6KI

[PB the Deplorable]

He doesn't. Scientists don't think he does, why would non scientists?...

I was hoping you could tell me.  If it wasn't for Al Gore and his get rich quick scheme, we wouldn't have been subjected to the scare tactics of the past nearly 15 years


The Al Gore experience is a little like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the rest.  They appeal to a certain segment of the population who are ready to be indoctrinated by their brand of political humor.  If you like them, great - vote Democrat, if not - well ignore them, they're just comedians.

Same with Al Gore.  If you like Democrat hack politicians, great - buy into this schlock, if not - well, he's not a scientist so ignore him.

... You know the difference between a hypothesis and a prediction don't you?...

Yes I do.  A hypothesis is formed (suggested explanation of a phenomena).  Then a prediction is made based on that hypothesis.  The prediction is tested.  When the test  doesn't yield the expected result, normally it's tossed out - back t the drawing board so to speak. 

But not when politics are involved.  Then it's lied about.

[Yorkshire pud]

I was hoping you could tell me.  If it wasn't for Al Gore and his get rich quick scheme, we wouldn't have been subjected to the scare tactics of the past nearly 15 years


The Al Gore experience is a little like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the rest.  They appeal to a certain segment of the population who are ready to be indoctrinated by their brand of political humor.  If you like them, great - vote Democrat, if not - well ignore them, they're just comedians.

Same with Al Gore.  If you like Democrat hack politicians, great - buy into this schlock, if not - well, he's not a scientist so ignore him.



Yes I do.  A hypothesis is formed (suggested explanation of a phenomena).  Then a prediction is made based on that hypothesis.  The prediction is tested.  When the test  doesn't yield the expected result, normally it's tossed out - back t the drawing board so to speak. 

But not when politics are involved.  Then it's lied about.

Yeah okay.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Yes I do.  A hypothesis is formed (suggested explanation of a phenomena).  Then a prediction is made based on that hypothesis.  The prediction is tested.  When the test  doesn't yield the expected result, normally it's tossed out - back t the drawing board so to speak. 

You mean when the real data doesn't match the modeled data like this?

[attach=1]

I admit they didn't get all the details right, but I think in a field where the interactions are so variable and complex that scientists only expect to observe a trend with any confidence once they've acquired thirty years of data, they've got some pretty good insight into the overall behaviour.

edit: btw if it's confusing, the thick black lines are observed historical data.  The rest are various simulated runs.  The thick red line is the mean of the other simulations.

[Yorkshire pud]

You mean when the real data doesn't match the modeled data like this?

[attach=1]

I admit they didn't get all the details right, but I think in a field where the interactions are so variable and complex that scientists only expect to observe a trend with any confidence once they've acquired thirty years of data, they've got some pretty good insight into the overall behaviour.

If Alex Jones doesn't confirm it, it didn't happen. Oh and big government has to be thrown in for good measure. Hell yeah.

[PB the Deplorable]

You mean when the real data doesn't match the modeled data like this?

[attach=1]

I admit they didn't get all the details right, but I think in a field where the interactions are so variable and complex that scientists only expect to observe a trend with any confidence once they've acquired thirty years of data, they've got some pretty good insight into the overall behaviour.

edit: btw if it's confusing, the thick black lines are observed historical data.  The rest are various simulated runs.  The thick red line is the mean of the other simulations.

Yes, we are still coming out of the last Ice Age (and at some point will begin going into the next one).  There are cycles within cycles during the process, it doesn't go in a straight line.

The issue is 'Man Made' Global-whatever-term-they-are-using-this-week.  Seems like that would go in more of a straight line. 

Any charts showing it's man-made?

[Yorkshire pud]

Yes, we are still coming out of the last Ice Age (and at some point will begin going into the next one).  There are cycles within cycles during the process, it doesn't go in a straight line.

The issue is 'Man Made' Global-whatever-term-they-are-using-this-week.  Seems like that would go in more of a straight line. 

Any charts showing it's man-made?

The title of the thread is: Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist.

The 'top meterologist' isn't. And nothing about anthropological influence, just an absolute "it's a lie" without qualification. Oh the article says CO2 excess isn't a bad thing, but as the link I posted suggests, it' a really bad thing as it acidifies the seas. And THAT is anthropological. But you didn't look so you won't know that.

[PB the Deplorable]

... the article says CO2 excess isn't a bad thing, but as the link I posted suggests, it' a really bad thing as it acidifies the seas...

I really hope there isn't a real problem, because these people have cried wolf too many times.

"Oh, you caught all those other lies, well we've found something new to scare you with"


No worries Pud, keep in mind I don't set policy

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Yes, we are still coming out of the last Ice Age (and at some point will begin going into the next one).  There are cycles within cycles during the process, it doesn't go in a straight line.

The issue is 'Man Made' Global-whatever-term-they-are-using-this-week.  Seems like that would go in more of a straight line. 

Any charts showing it's man-made?

The chart I gave you was out of an IPCC report.


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

I suppose we could argue about the merits of that, but I did come across a graphic earlier showing the dozens of inputs they used for their models, including everything from CO2 and CH4 to volcanic eruptions.  However I can't find it right now and need to get to bed. 

I have come across several charts like the following though, correlating atmospheric CO2 to temperature:

[attachimg=1]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation-intermediate.htm

Unfortunately I haven't been able to do enough research to see if it is based on peer reviewed sources.

I also had another graphic showing that the vast majority of the heat is absorbed by the oceans, with the upper and lower layers interacting with each other and with the atmosphere.  One of the causes for the fluctuations seems to be that El Nino and La Nina events cause the oceans to absorb or reject more heat at different times.  We had a major El Nino in 1998 which transferred a lot of heat to the atmosphere and is said to have given extra high readings for that year, while the oceans have been absorbing more heat than expected since then giving a levelling off effect.  At least that is what some studies seem to be showing, though I think it is not that well established yet.  The real point is that the interactions are complex and don't give a nice straight line.

[Yorkshire pud]

The title of the thread is: Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist.

So it isn't a lie then as QK suggested? Or have you discovered that QK talks pretty much 100% bollox 100% of the time and maybe scientists in various countries in hundreds of research institutes all coming to similar conclusions trump QK? Yeah, that might be it.

I really hope there isn't a real problem, because these people have cried wolf too many times.

"Oh, you caught all those other lies, well we've found something new to scare you with"


No worries Pud, keep in mind I don't set policy

[Yorkshire pud]

I really hope there isn't a real problem, because these people have cried wolf too many times.

"Oh, you caught all those other lies, well we've found something new to scare you with"


No worries Pud, keep in mind I don't set policy

I'll insert the bit you forgot; I know you overlooked it. Funny that.

And THAT is anthropological. But you didn't look so you won't know that.

[b_dubb]

Very interesting clip


http://youtu.be/C35pasCr6KI

thanks for posting this.  calm, reasoned discussion instead of dogma and name calling.

please. we need more of this.

[Quick Karl]

We had a major El Nino in 1998 which transferred a lot of heat to the atmosphere and is said to have given extra high readings for that year, while the oceans have been absorbing more heat than expected since then giving a levelling off effect.

And I caught some awesome Yellow Fin Tuna on the long-range fishing boats out of San Diego that year! Also caught the biggest Mahi Mahi I've ever seen! It was fantastic, and the fish was delicious!.

[pate]

...it' a really bad thing as it acidifies the seas...

Not being a scientist, I often use this sort of claim as a sort of 'straw-man' argument to attack.

I understand that the first guy (scientist?) to artificially carbonate a liquid had some sort of trouble with it (something about using a swing over wine/beer fermentation vessels with a vial of ordinary water) and his result was negligible even by the scientific means of the time.  I also understand that Carbonic (or was is Carbolic? what's the diff?) is relatively mild...  I also note that Calcium (the preferred mineral/element) for oysters/clams/mussels/anyother shelled oceanic organisms is very susceptible to acid...  I also note that I have little trouble with the mussel type class of sea creatures at my local dinner/lunch/breakfast watering hole...

Anyhow, back to the partial pressure required to generate Carbonic/Carbolic acid (again, what's the diff?), and the present levels of CO2 in atmosphere.  Not being a scientist, I rely on other scientists like yourself to explain this whole carbuncle of an argument?

God love ya' Pud, but please, please give me some sort of paper or scientific study to correct my ignorance!

edit:  I have no references or anything to correct my silly recollections of what I've read heard Limbaugh or somesuch tell me over the years in scientific journals on the radio...

second edit:  for some reason the ghost of my old (at the time) chemistry teacher (who had something to do with the wine not whine industry) used to harp on and on about some crap called 'partial pressures' the old dolt failed me for some reason (I suspect for not showing up to his boring ass classes where he didn't talk about making synthetic pschlyoscibin juice or something, dammit I was at the forefront of biochem before the shit had a degree program... but then I was failed out by some persnickety old professor type... jeesh...  baseball!)

[Yorkshire pud]

God love ya' Pud, but please, please give me some sort of paper or scientific study to correct my ignorance!

God doesn't love me, but hey it's a two way street. I found this if it''s any use to you, National Geographic no less. But I'm not sure where they get their liberal commie science from. An e mail to them might bear fruit.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

And I caught some awesome Yellow Fin Tuna on the long-range fishing boats out of San Diego that year! Also caught the biggest Mahi Mahi I've ever seen! It was fantastic, and the fish was delicious!.

Well, get ready for more of that  .

[pate]

So this relatively mild (carbonic) acid, akin to dumping your undrank (undrinken? undranken?) Diet Coke down the drain, this sort of acid?  Perhaps your Perrier water or other 'fizzies' like that with no sugar added...  In any case, this is all to relate to the unconsumed fizzy beverages, or the sugar or the fact that hujamzees! or something have done something to artificially carbonate a liquid...

Your fantastic Nat'l Geo article didn't do much to make me scream, my waistline however has, artificially carbonated beverages are extremely difficult to make (well, one needs refridgeration and CO2 under high pressure...) to turn them into the slightly acidic evils that they are, but it is the sugar and those extra calories that seem to make my waist expand...

Blah, my expanding waistline shouldn't be the question here, it should be the steadily INCREASING of the oceans acidification...

Your wonderful Nat Geo article not withstanding, I don't believe any signifigant ocean pH change has been noted...

If so, I imagine Perrier should look into de salinization vs whichever the method is that they obtain their natural carbonic acid that they bottle and sell to us mere mortals...

Edit: ""Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries. ""  So over the past 300 million yars 8.2 average, today (as measured by today's standard's not the ones we've been using over the past 300 million years) the pH is a whopping 8.1, and that is including the average measurement we have obtained from 300 MILLION years of data, leading us to a deciscion of the past 200 yars ( what's the error between 300,000,000 vs 200?  Order of magnitude or something? describe to me that error rate that this 'scientific journal' presents...  So, if the maths are correct over 3,000,000:200 yars ; 8.2:8.1 ?  Can you explain the pH scale to me?  The nat geo article seems to neglect that, it also seems to not understand things...


Primus: Have a Cigar