quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Climate Science is a made-up term. The accurate term is Climatology, or the study of climate. The same as Medicine. A practice, not a science. If Climate Science were a science, there would be only one hurricane track rather than 50 guesses. Outcomes are projected by computer models rather than direct observation. Climatology uses some scientific methods, but it is not a science.

"Climate Science" and the global warming hoax have been used as payback to Al Gore, John Kerry, the UN, and the industrial complex as a substitute for war. Create a fictitious "boogeyman" to bilk the world out of cash.

Mathematics, Physics, Astronomy, Engineering, Chemistry are sciences because theories can be proved and results repeated time and time again.

Thank you Bob
Some of these pseudo AR scientists are sure “ real deal” on here
Mind boggles as Saeed would say

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Well, perhaps you can educate me how in the hell anyone knows what the CO2 concentrations were in the past? Don't give me that arctic ice core shit.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Yes, but the question is though did humans cause it or is it just nature? Can you provide real evidence and not projections?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Then there's the methane

this is part of the vicious cycle - the warmer it gets, the more then permafrost melts, the more methane released, the warmer it gets ...

and don't get me started on cows and vegans

Do you figure it's a coincidence that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere track precisely with human emissions of CO2 since the start of the Industrial Revolution?

Really?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Except that it’s an assumption that the ice bubbles don’t diffuse or change.

Like the assumption that carbon 14 decays identically everywhere.

It’s a little difficult to prove that the atmosphere is unchanged from the era that the ice was formed, and that we can necessarily date the ice accurately.

It wasn’t until we found serious errors in C14 from known shipwrecks that we even thought about possible different decay rates.

The same is very possible with the assumptions used to date the ice cores and the likelihood that the atmosphere is an accurate record in those bubbles.

Similarly our record of temperatures is through indirect measurements or rather imprecise records.

How do we “know” what the average global temperature was in the 1600’s… before Fahrenheit came up with the thermometer?

Are the measurements from the early 1800’s accurate enough to show the .1-.5 degree change everyone is bandying about?

Is there enough for concern?

Sure.

Is it proof to the level acceptable in the basic sciences of physics, math, chemistry?

Hell no.

It’s closer to the level of proof in medical studies… which give different results with regularity.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The consensus of Western Medicine is to treat gender dysphoria with gender affirming care. So, it would work to do apply.

England, tax payers even pay for it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Carbon 14 was shown to have some errors based on various assumptions...

https://www.sciencealert.com/r...bration-inaccuracies

Its not the rate of decay that changes, but rather a number of other assumptions.
Then why, you disingenuous POS, did you say exactly the opposite and question whether C14 decays the same everywhere?

Paleoclimatologists are trying to do their best, but there are a large number of uncertainties and assumptions in their work.
And apparently, your self-appointed "work" is to throw dust into the air and try to discredit their work.

And cardiac surgeons do "wing it" pretty regularly- that's what experimentation is. They also know dang well that their underlying assumptions are open for re evaluation.

Put it this way... the criteria for bypass surgery has changed rather significantly in the last 40 years. As have the techniques used. Climatology and research into it is changing very rapidly... its a new field of study and there hasn't been all that much study of things.

Also, unlike cardiac surgery, where you can do experiments and test your findings experimentally, climate study is mostly using mathematical models to predict... and has been off way more than on when you go back and check the predictions to what actually happens.

quote:

You are in the "grouchy old fart" stage of life huh!

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
So Jeff, you really have no interest in discussion? You want to tell someone your view, and that's that, no-one else matters.
You are in the "grouchy old fart" stage of life huh!

quote:

Far better to just be honest and admit that you would rather your grandchildren live in a catastrophically degraded environment than you be inconvenienced or have to admit you were wrong all these years.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
And yet to not question things is wrong.
scientist question themselves.
Kabob, have you forgotten already the article I put up, where a scientist said they were often wrong, and that was a good thing?
It makes them keep questioning themselves.
I feel they should question.
Look at Fauci, MASKS WILL PREVENT COVID!!! TWO MASKS ARE BETTER!!
So many bowed down and kissed his ass as all knowing. When things are put to the test, science changes all the time.

quote:

You can call it a conspiracy if it makes you feel better.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
https://youtu.be/E1e5HAZo4iw?si=2GkdDri7iEcmIXYp


How reliable were theses scientists?

Interesting

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
What part of the science doesn’t fail?

Science is a process, not a fact.

How often did the old Me 262’s fail (metallurgy issues) compared to new ones? (Jet aircraft)

How do we have planes still fail for unknown reasons?

As to the whole C14 thing, I remembered reading an article with the comments about different rates of decay in the water.

On searching for it, I was unable to find it, and found something more recent. It looks like from the article I quoted that they showed it wasn’t a change in decay rates, but found to be variability in C14 deposition… ie, the science changed.

Sorry, it ain’t pseudointellectualism, that’s what folks who parrot the mainstream news and call folks who actually look at source studies are exhibiting.

Generally combining errors multiplies the inherent error.

Using the archaeology and physics for carbon dating, then going to geology to climate history to current global warming studies is just full of errors, many of which we don’t have a clue of… and what’s worse, we cannot experiment to verify.

With climatology, there is very little ability to experiment, thus the use of modeling… which ends up showing an error, and gets reported, and then a change is made to make the new model fit the new data.

Medicine has a lot of “art” to it because we can’t prove to a high degree of confidence… mainly due to confounding errors caused by the fact we are dealing with organisms that are not completely identical.

Think about it- why do we have studies that say high dose vitamin c is good/bad/irrelevant/maybe helpful? If it was simple science, with well controlled studies, the studies would show consistent results… they don’t.

So medicine tries its best, and makes recommendations based on consensus (ie, voting) not proof.

Regarding a large number of treatments, you are dealing with consensus. The entire DSM 5 is a consensus document. We can’t prove just what schizophrenia is. We can show that there is a spectrum of symptoms, and some folks fit these criteria better than others, and that their symptoms tend to respond to certain treatments in certain ways, but not absolutely. Why would we have dozens of antipsychotic drugs if they all worked identically in all people? …as an example.

For example, in your choice, they now are using rather high level math and statistics to try and make C14 dating “universal” again. That is modeled, and apparently accepted… until they find proof of it not holding… which becomes increasingly hard to find due to either the math is correctly applied - or - we cannot find any evidence it doesn’t work because the historical data provable by alternate means just doesn’t exist.

I will bet that if we ever can develop time travel, there would be a huge number of errors found in all walks of human endeavor.

I’m not really wedded to any particular outcome re climate. I can see where our current climate scientists have made some assumptions that could be wrong. I can also see where they could be accurately portraying what is going on.

But until they can actually experimentally predict what is going to happen in advance, and then not have to modify their findings to make it fit, (and we have seen a lot of this in medicine) it’s not proven. Even if there is a”consensus” that it’s right.

We had a lot of experimentation and consensus that bleeding worked for infection… where is that at now?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

You can call it a conspiracy if it makes you feel better.

I think that's what you and other are doing.



For denier's theory to work, then the conspiracy has to include the factor that the scientists are lying - in cahoots; not just that they are mistaken or inconclusive, but lying.

So, when deniers claim that they are mere skeptics, that's a lie. Real science skeptics don't believe scientists, in general or in cahoots, are liars.

Thus, maybe climate science deniers are doing the psychological projection thing; inappropriately projecting their own character and worldviews upon those poor scientists.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
BTW, Lee is still a lumbering Cat.3 not the 5 that ALL media outlets predicted...

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
BTW, Lee is still a lumbering Cat.3 not the 5 that ALL media outlets predicted...

It was a Cat 5.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Despite the climate panic, we have been in a mild period of tropical storms and hurricanes for many years. Every year we hear the same whining and crying from the climate doomers that we are going to have record storms. They are like a stopped clock hoping to be right twice a day. One only needs to look at the shape of the SE US coast to see it has been pummeled by storms over the millennia. The predictions have not come to pass.

It is impossible to tell what the earth's temperature has been over the last thousands of years to an accuracy of a tenth of a degree. All guesswork by con artists wanting to bilk money from the people for imaginary solutions to imaginary problems. One thing is a sure bet, the older the ice is and the more freeze/thaw cycles it has gone through, the less dissolved gasses there will be.

Likewise, you cannot determine past atmospheric CO2 to within thousandths of a % using ice cores. The notion that ice traps and preserves the exact level of CO2 in the air is ludicrous. Snow does not magically transform into solid ice and trap air bubbles. It must pass through a liquid state before re-freezing into ice. While liquid, gasses can escape, and the water can evaporate and remove gasses. The bubbles in ice are formed by remaining dissolved gasses escaping as the water freezes. A big assumption to declare this process is identical every year and represents an accurate sample. Especially with plate tectonics and continental drift.

Making decisions based on sketchy data is dangerous. Most atmospheric CO2 is scrubbed by rainfall. It then forms dilute carbonic acid. This acts on carbonate rock and erodes it. Erosion of carbonate rock is a major source of CO2. Some researchers think that is the other way around. Increased temperatures cause more evaporation and rainfall, resulting in higher CO2 levels from erosion.

My suggestion is we stop burning coal, switch coal plants to natural gas, ramp up modular nuclear plant approvals and fund fusion research.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Despite the climate panic, we have been in a mild period of tropical storms and hurricanes for many years. Every year we hear the same whining and crying from the climate doomers that we are going to have record storms. They are like a stopped clock hoping to be right twice a day. One only needs to look at the shape of the SE US coast to see it has been pummeled by storms over the millennia. The predictions have not come to pass.

It is impossible to tell what the earth's temperature has been over the last thousands of years to an accuracy of a tenth of a degree. All guesswork by con artists wanting to bilk money from the people for imaginary solutions to imaginary problems. One thing is a sure bet, the older the ice is and the more freeze/thaw cycles it has gone through, the less dissolved gasses there will be. I was just going to let this be, but parts of this are simply too stupid to ignore, like these freeze/thaw cycles. Do you really think that the ice cap on Greenland has been thawing out every summer for the last 100,000 years (1,000,000 in places) and freezing back in winter?

Likewise, you cannot determine past atmospheric CO2 to within thousandths of a % using ice cores. The notion that ice traps and preserves the exact level of CO2 in the air is ludicrous. Snow does not magically transform into solid ice and trap air bubbles. It must pass through a liquid state before re-freezing into ice. While liquid, gasses can escape, and the water can evaporate and remove gasses. The bubbles in ice are formed by remaining dissolved gasses escaping as the water freezes. A big assumption to declare this process is identical every year and represents an accurate sample. Especially with plate tectonics and continental drift. Take a few minutes and go make yourself slightly less ignorant about glaciers in general and how they form in particular, it's embarrassing.

Making decisions based on sketchy data is dangerous. Most atmospheric CO2 is scrubbed by rainfall. It then forms dilute carbonic acid. This acts on carbonate rock and erodes it. Erosion of carbonate rock is a major source of CO2. Some researchers think that is the other way around. Increased temperatures cause more evaporation and rainfall, resulting in higher CO2 levels from erosion.

My suggestion is we stop burning coal, switch coal plants to natural gas, ramp up modular nuclear plant approvals and fund fusion research.

quote:

At the outbreak of the first Punic War in 264 BCE, for instance, the amount of lead in the Greenland ice layers dropped abruptly. But production ramped up again closer to the final years of the war, as Carthage minted more silver coins to pay its mercenary forces.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Same for the climate alarmists.

Why is it that a carbon tax is the answer, as opposed to investing in non carbon nuclear power?

Why do they point to windmills and solar which we know will not provide adequate power to maintain acceptable availability and are requiring us to pollute more to make them?

Are they trying to drive us over a cliff or is it that it’s more about control and less about dealing with increased CO2 emissions?