Science knowledge has no effect on Republican beliefs

Milagro said:
Yes it's true, climate models are not in the least bit trustworthy.

Climate models fail on the test stand

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

20 years ago climate models were celebrated as a huge breakthrough. Finally we were able to reproduce reality in the computer, which had been becoming ever more powerful and faster. Everyone believed that only minor adjustments were necessary, and the target would be reached. But when the computer-crunched results were finally compared to reality, huge unexplained discrepancies appeared.

In parallel, paleo-climatologists produced increasingly robust reconstructions of the real climate development, which served to make the computer problems even more glaring. Month after month new papers appeared exposing the major problems of the climate modelers. Model tests were preferably started in the middle of the Little Ice Age, around 1800, because the warming seemed to fit well with the rise in CO2 emissions.

But if one goes back 1000 years, the model technology falls apart.

In March 2016 Fabius Maximus pointed out the obvious: The models have to be more strictly tested and calibrated before they can be approved for modeling the future.

We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models
[…] The policy debate turns on the reliability of the predictions of climate models. These can be tested to give “good enough” answers for policy decision-makers so that they can either proceed or require more research. I proposed one way to do this in Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate & win: test the models!— with includes a long list of cites (with links) to the literature about this topic. This post shows that such a test is in accord with both the norms of science and the work of climate scientists. […] Models should be tested vs. out of sample observations to prevent “tuning” the model to match known data (even inadvertently), for the same reason that scientists run double-blind experiments). The future is the ideal out of sample data, since model designers cannot tune their models to it. Unfortunately…

“…if we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately observations of the future are not available at this time.”
— Thomas R. Knutson and Robert E. Tuleya,*note in Journal of Climate, December 2005.

There is a solution. The models from the first four IPCC assessment reports can be run with observations made after their design (from their future, our past) — a special kind of hindcast.”

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/24/...t-real-science/#sthash.u4R7mNo1.Kn0A1UhJ.dpuf
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/24/recent-research-shows-climate-models-are-m
ostly-black-box-fudging-not-real-science/#sthash.u4R7mNo1.Kn0A1UhJ.dpbs

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
Click to expand...
Yes but you tend to cherry pick the data that supports your view. Now I to have significant scientific credentials with a BA in human biology, I also earned 90 credit hours in graduate studies in human biology before switching gears to earn a Masters in EH&S management while I was working as a research assistant in materials engineering at a major university and though by no means an expert in climate nor have I ever pretended to be but the data I've seen overwhelmingly supports anthropogenic climate change. That's not to say I don't have a healthy degree of skepticism in regards to the scope, extent and projections of the problem but the evidence supporting ACG far out weighs the evidence to the contrary.

That is not something I take lightly and I do understand some of the political and economic points of adopting policies with far reaching economic consequences when there's a hell of a lot more to be learned and it's not clearly understood if proposed solutions would would be effective.

But to use politics to undermine the science is silly and self serving.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes but you tend to cherry pick the data that supports your view. Now I to have significant scientific credentials with a BA in human biology, I also earned 90 credit hours in graduate studies in human biology before switching gears to earn a Masters in EH&S management while I was working as a research assistant in materials engineering at a major university and though by no means an expert in climate nor have I ever pretended to be but the data I've seen overwhelmingly supports anthropogenic climate change. That's not to say I don't have a healthy degree of skepticism in regards to the scope, extent and projections of the problem but the evidence supporting ACG far out weighs the evidence to the contrary.

That is not something I take lightly and I do understand some of the political and economic points of adopting policies with far reaching economic consequences when there's a hell of a lot more to be learned and it's not clearly understood if proposed solutions would would be effective.

But to use politics to undermine the science is silly and self serving.
Click to expand...

And yet the left constantly uses politics to undermine the science. I never hear anyone discuss the mini ice age and accompanying warming that happen a couple of hundred years ago. At one point the earth was a lot warmer than it is now, then we had a large ice age. Man did nothing to cause to that.
 
What does science say about people who spend hundreds of hours on the same political chat board arguing with each other?
 
Yaya said:
And yet the left constantly uses politics to undermine the science. I never hear anyone discuss the mini ice age and accompanying warming that happen a couple of hundred years ago. At one point the earth was a lot warmer than it is now, then we had a large ice age. Man did nothing to cause to that.
Click to expand...

Did it happen in 100 years, an epochal blip? Was there a cause identified that shares green house gas issues?

You aren't a climate scientist.
 
Yaya said:
Didn't think you had the capability to rationally respond to my accurate statement. You're a nothing, a dumb nobody. What I said is correct and because you know it, all you can do is offer up some hysterical insults.

Did you graduate High School?
Click to expand...

No, you are irrational. You are not a climate scientist and you doubt the consensus opinion of 99 percent of those who are. That means something else is driving you. So, I laugh at you. You are either stupid or brainwashed. There is no third option. When your accountant tells you that you can't take a deduction, do you tell him to F off and take it? That's not rational. That's stupid greed. If you discard the experts, and you are not one, you are stupid or there is some other motivation. For you? Tribal monkey loyalty to the STUPID party.

So fuck off, stupid.
 
Micawber said:
No, you are irrational. You are not a climate scientist and you doubt the consensus opinion of 99 percent of those who are. That means something else is driving you. So, I laugh at you. You are either stupid or brainwashed. There is no third option. When your accountant tells you that you can't take a deduction, do you tell him to F off and take it? That's not rational. That's stupid greed. If you discard the experts, and you are not one, you are stupid or there is some other motivation. For you? Tribal monkey loyalty to the STUPID party.

So fuck off, stupid.
Click to expand...

You are not a climate scientist either. And you would be right in line with the 99% flat earthers.

So, pound sand, stupid.
 
Yaya said:
And you said you have no credentials.

GFY dumbass.
Click to expand...

Sorry honesty offends you. Not surprised though. So, you deniers talk about climate change eons ago. Answer the questions. This happened in an epochal nanosecond. Did it then? Did it associate with some cataclysm? Was that greenhouse gas related? Or was it solar terrestrial physics event? Did you have a coronal mass ejaculation?

Climate change denial, as a non expert makes, you a CLOWN. It is a subject inaccessible to lay opinion.
 
Yaya said:
Remember when 99% of 'scientist' said the earth was flat?

This whole consensus thing cracks me up.

I do believe there is climate change, I do believe man contributes some part, but not as much as warmers claim.
Click to expand...
Most scientists believe that there is an anthropogenic element to warming but many think it is not very significant.

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes but you tend to cherry pick the data that supports your view. Now I to have significant scientific credentials with a BA in human biology, I also earned 90 credit hours in graduate studies in human biology before switching gears to earn a Masters in EH&S management while I was working as a research assistant in materials engineering at a major university and though by no means an expert in climate nor have I ever pretended to be but the data I've seen overwhelmingly supports anthropogenic climate change. That's not to say I don't have a healthy degree of skepticism in regards to the scope, extent and projections of the problem but the evidence supporting ACG far out weighs the evidence to the contrary.

That is not something I take lightly and I do understand some of the political and economic points of adopting policies with far reaching economic consequences when there's a hell of a lot more to be learned and it's not clearly understood if proposed solutions would would be effective.

But to use politics to undermine the science is silly and self serving.
Click to expand...
I have said until I'm blue in the face that there is an anthropogenic aspect to climate change. I don't think there are many who dispute that, but the main argument is about the degree to which it is occurring. Many scientists agree that for a doubling of CO2 concentration the resultant climate forcing will produce a temperature rise of around 1.2C notwithstanding any negative feedbacks. What is a huge bone in contention is possible positive feedbacks, there is no real empirical evidence for their existence outside of climate models.

If you are going to argue about the politics of climate change then I would maintain that it is the Left that have hijacked the science for their own ends. If you don't believe that then you ought to read what Patrick Moore has to say about Greenpeace.

http://liberallyconservative.com/greenpeace-marxists/

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes but you tend to cherry pick the data that supports your view. Now I to have significant scientific credentials with a BA in human biology, I also earned 90 credit hours in graduate studies in human biology before switching gears to earn a Masters in EH&S management while I was working as a research assistant in materials engineering at a major university and though by no means an expert in climate nor have I ever pretended to be but the data I've seen overwhelmingly supports anthropogenic climate change. That's not to say I don't have a healthy degree of skepticism in regards to the scope, extent and projections of the problem but the evidence supporting ACG far out weighs the evidence to the contrary.

That is not something I take lightly and I do understand some of the political and economic points of adopting policies with far reaching economic consequences when there's a hell of a lot more to be learned and it's not clearly understood if proposed solutions would would be effective.

But to use politics to undermine the science is silly and self serving.
Click to expand...
I have said until I'm blue in the face that there is an anthropogenic aspect to climate change. I don't think there are many who dispute that, but the main argument is about the degree to which it is occurring. Many scientists agree that for a doubling of CO2 concentration the resultant climate forcing will produce a temperature rise of around 1.2C notwithstanding any negative feedbacks. What is a huge bone in contention is possible positive feedbacks, there is no real empirical evidence for their existence outside of climate models.

If you are going to argue about the politics of climate change then I would maintain that it is the Left that have hijacked the science for their own ends. If you don't believe that then you ought to read what Patrick Moore has to say about Greenpeace.

http://liberallyconservative.com/greenpeace-marxists/
Yaya said:
And yet the left constantly uses politics to undermine the science. I never hear anyone discuss the mini ice age and accompanying warming that happen a couple of hundred years ago. At one point the earth was a lot warmer than it is now, then we had a large ice age. Man did nothing to cause to that.
Click to expand...

They have tried to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period, ignore the Maunder Minimum, change the ocean data to remove the near twenty year pause verified by both weather balloons and satellites. Indeed they are still ignoring the fact that the Sun is at a historical low for sunspot activity.

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
 
Last edited:
Micawber said:
Sorry honesty offends you. Not surprised though. So, you deniers talk about climate change eons ago. Answer the questions. This happened in an epochal nanosecond. Did it then? Did it associate with some cataclysm? Was that greenhouse gas related? Or was it solar terrestrial physics event? Did you have a coronal mass ejaculation?

Climate change denial, as a non expert makes, you a CLOWN. It is a subject inaccessible to lay opinion.
Click to expand...
Not really sure who you would believe as you have a very closed mind. Freeman Dyson is the greatest living physicist and his views carry far more weight than some fool who calls himself after a Dickens character.

https://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top