1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Aussie scientists caught sexing up temperature data

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by dogtowner, Aug 1, 2017.

  1. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    277
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are really getting quite boring in your consistent ignorance. Go to the link, and start reading from page 14 downward, and see what real scientists have to say.
     
  2. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,228
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Opinion, smoke and mirrors.
    As always...
     
    palerider likes this.
  3. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I did...so what exactly in that steaming pile of BS do you think qualifies as observed, measured, quantified, evidence that mankind is even contributing to the changing global climate...I did not the number of blatant lies...claims of an increase of 1.2 degrees since the 1980's...when the fact is that the bulk of temperature change claimed is the result of data manipulation...I already provided a thread that calls the global record into question...It looks at regional temperature records and they don't show anything like global warming...they show a couple of regions that have warmed very slightly...and the rest of the world is either not warming or cooling slightly..."global" warming only shows up in the highly manipulated and massaged global record....

    But do tell, where in that steaming pile do you think you see observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability?

    My bet is that you won't point it out because for one thing, you didn't read it...had you read it and found any such evidence, you would have posted it...second, you won't because there is none there...it's models for the most part...abjectly failing models...and models verifying models...and model output presented as if it were actual data....at least that site pretends to be science...unlike the rest of what you have linked to which was little better than opinion.
     
  4. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    277
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This is the usual problem egotists, and the ignorant, have. If it does not agree with their pointy headed, small minded, opinion then it is either a lie, or the result of manipulation. So, while I am not convinced that climate change is caused by man, I am convinced that you are a fool thinking he is some kind of psuedo-scientist.


    https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
     
  5. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ahhhh...the classic response of the ignorant dupe...build yourself a big old logical fallacy in which you can make your inability to provide even a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW (even to a minor degree) over natural variability my fault.

    I asked for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW (to any degree) over natural variability...to date, not a single one of you warmers has managed to achieve that feat. My position is based entirely on the empirical evidence....There is no place for opinion in science....either the evidence supports you or it does not. You, on the other hand depend entirely on opinion as there is no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence upon which to support your position.

    And the wait continues for that single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW (even to a small degree) over natural variability. It appears that the Great Pumpkin may show up before any actual evidence supporting your position.


    Well, we can determine that this isn't science right off the bat as it is produced by the environmental defense fund. Note that this organization used to be all about cleaning up the environment...water, actual pollution, ground, etc. Now it is a mouthpiece for climate change and hasn't done anything real towards actually cleaning up the environment in a very long time. Aside from that, lets look at what they have to say.

    1. Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)

    So what? CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant, nor does it have any effect on the global climate. Unless, of course, you would care to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that it does...if it did alter the global temperature, it would be doing so by an observable, measurable, quantifiable mechanism...and it is the central claim of climate science. One would think that there would be such evidence...where is it?

    So the first piece of "evidence" is nothing more than opinion, not supported by fact.

    2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)

    This one brings us back to the big assumption that was put forward in the first piece of "evidence". We know that when the ice age that the earth is, at present, still exiting began, the atmospheric CO2 levels were around 1000ppm...more than double the present amount and yet, an ice age began under those conditions. That along calls into question the claimed warming capacity of CO2. So number 2 is just an accessory to the assumption in number one. Do we see a pattern forming here?

    3. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it is increasing and that the levels are higher than anything we’ve seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)

    Yes....the pattern continues. They just keep accessorizing the assumption made in exhibit #1. I suppose they think that if they accessorize it enough, that nasty old requirement for actual evidence that exists in the field of physical sciences will just disappear.

    The fact that the CO2 levels are lower than anything for hundreds of thousands...even millions of years is due to the fact that the Earth is in an ice age. Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water...the colder the water, the more CO2 is sequestered. As the water warms, CO2 outgasses. Every ice core ever done has shown us that increasing atospheric CO2 lags behind warming temperatures by anywhere from 100 to 900 years depending on the amount and rate of warming that was happening. Increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause.

    Further, recent published research has called into question our contribution to atmospheric CO2. It seems that when the subject is looked at closely, there is little correlation between our CO2 output and the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As I have been saying for decades, we don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation in the Earth's own CO2 making machinery.

    4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)

    More accessories to the first exhibit...what a surprise. Actually, recent studies have found that those isotopes that climate science has so long touted as a human fingerprint are quite common in the earth's own natural CO2 making machine as well. After all, they are the result of burning natural products. So no, the so called fingerprint of hunan CO2 is not true at all, although I wouldn't expect an outfit like the EDF to be worried about fact...I mean, look at the evidence so far.

    5. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)

    What do you know...an actual observable, measurable, quantifiable piece of evidence....although even in this, they only told a half truth. While CO2 can absorb infrared radiation in a few very narrow frequency bands, it is quite unable to hold on to that radiation. It absorbs and then emits the radiation....if it gets the chance. You see, it takes about 1 second for a CO2 molecule which has absorbed a photon to go from the ground state to an excited state and emit a photon. In the lower atmosphere, the time between molecular collisions by which the CO2 molecule might pass on that absorbed energy is roughly a nanosecond. A billion times shorter than the time it takes to emit the photon. So in the troposphere, roughly one CO2 per billion actually gets to absorb and emit a photon of IR...the rest simply pass on the energy they absorb via the route of molecular collision...This means that within the troposphere, where the radiative greenhouse effect is supposed to be the mechanism for keeping the Earth at a habitable temperature, convection is the dominant form of energy movement by a ratio of about a billion to one. The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere so dominated by convection is laughable and pseudoscience on its face.



    (CONTINUED)
     
  6. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    (CONTINUATION)

    8. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)


    Compter models that are abject failures...computer models that can barely predict the present even with constant adjustment and tweaking...computer models that have failed spectacularly...Look at the graph below and you tell me how much faith you place in models.. Look at the predictions of the major models vs the actual observations...not even close. And why are they not even close, because the models are the incarnation of the AGW hypothesis...They predict based on the physics upon which the AGW hypothesis is based...and they are dead wrong. If the underlying physics were correct, then the models would also be correct.


    [​IMG]



    9. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)


    And now, ladies and gentlemen, the biggest joke of all. Consensus. What a laugh. Do you know that if you look back through history, every failed scientific theory was once supported by the consensus? Recently the consensus has found that they were wrong regarding quasicrystals...and that they were wrong regarding the cause of stomach ulcers, and the effects of salt, and natural dietary fats, and on and on and on. In practically every field of science, especially when the science is young, the consensus has been wrong nearly 100% of the time. Consensus is a political term and has nothing whatsoever to do with science. When a theory has proven itself over and over and over and models based on that theory can be counted on to predict accurately time after time and observation after observation bears out the theory......at that point, the theory becomes scientific law. No consensus is necessary, the observed, measured, quantified evidence speaks for itself.


    The AGW hypothesis is not even close to becoming theory...hell, it is a piss poor hypothesis



    skeptical science? Really? Well, there is nothing there even remotely resembling observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis (even as a contributor) to global climate. There is a basic assumption and the usual accessories.


    Face it trapper, you are a first class, top shelf dupe. Your concern for the environment has been hijacked by a scam and you have been blindly led into falling for the biggest, most expensive pseudoscientific hoax ever perpetrated on humanity...and you are just to f'ing proud at this point to ever admit that you are wrong...you will go on believing because you don't have the first inkling of what actual science is all about...this is profoundly evident in the sort of BULLSHIT that you bring here as evidence to support your belief. I ask for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability and even though we have access to such a quantity of information that it would have dumbfounded academics even 50 years ago, you can't provide it....not a single shred because it simply doesn't exist.....and in your pride, you can't bring yourself to even question how climate science can pretend to be so certain of its claims when that first shred of actual evidence supporting those claims doesn't exist....rather you build logical fallacies that make you inability to provide any real evidence my fault. I would laugh at you if you weren't so sad...you and all the other useful idiots who push opinion and pseudoscience as if it were real science.
     
Loading...

Share This Page