More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change

[Texas_tea]

Well, if this isn't a climate change I want to know what it is becasue sorry the weather is becoming erratic. Since when do I watch the news and see cars being floated away along with reports of houses literally floating away in Texas of all places. A few weeks ago this was one othe drought areas, now it looks like someone better go find Noah's Ark because this isn't pretty. But I am suppose to buy its always been this way. Sorry, no sell there is definitely climate change going on.

Yes there is. I believe those climate changes are called Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer.

This "climate change" has been going for a long time.

 

[palerider]

Well, if this isn't a climate change I want to know what it is becasue sorry the weather is becoming erratic. Since when do I watch the news and see cars being floated away along with reports of houses literally floating away in Texas of all places. A few weeks ago this was one othe drought areas, now it looks like someone better go find Noah's Ark because this isn't pretty. But I am suppose to buy its always been this way. Sorry, no sell there is definitely climate change going on.

You don't have to "buy" that it has always been this way...all you need do is look at weather history....The fact is that floods, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc are less frequent now than they have been in the past.

As to climate changing...welcome to reality...it has always been changing and will continue to do so. As soon as you find something going on that is outside the bounds of natural variability, let us know....but at present, there is nothing, nor has their been anything happening in the climate that is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability. Nothing even appears to remotely resemble a human fingerprint without arbitrary time constraints or blatant cherrypicking.

 

[Johnlox]

The problem with discussing this kind of thing is that we all have our own agendas whether or not we want to admit it. I know I do - my posts always seemed to be tinged with a moderate tone as if I'm trying to remain open-minded, or suggesting that my particular way to be in the world is the only way to be. Now, all we need do is look around and see that that isn't true. There are many ways to be. If only there were a way to turn off emotion and agenda and the influence of cultural upbringing in order to get at the pure facts.

 

[Lagboltz]

I agree. You probably have not seen enough of palerider to know that he doesn't believe in quantum mechanics or the work of Plank and Einstein a century ago. He has an ability to pick and choose what hard science is crap and what he can misinterpret for his own ends.
I take no stance in the inexact climate science, but if anyone misconstrues or misuses accepted hard science or math to make a point, I will call them on it.

I think the two sides are too polarized to turn off emotion.

 

[nytegeek]

What next? Are you going to find evidence to support contradicting claims about gravity? Maybe you would have us believe the Earth is flat? Anybody can pay to have anything submitted as a study to a variety of publications. It doesn't make their argument valid. Show some credible research published in a reputable journal.

 

[dogtowner]

What next? Are you going to find evidence to support contradicting claims about gravity? Maybe you would have us believe the Earth is flat? Anybody can pay to have anything submitted as a study to a variety of publications. It doesn't make their argument valid. Show some credible research published in a reputable journal.

You state publications can be had for money then call for it.
It would be refreshing to see some science presented as opposed to computer models. You can make a computer model say anything at all.

 

[nytegeek]

There are publications used to publish psuedo-science that will publish almost anything for a price. John Bohannon had the media telling people to eat chocolate for weight loss after publishing a fake study. That doesn't mean that reputable publications are publishing fraudulent studies for cash. A properly constructed computer model is useful for analyzing complex data, just because they can be manipulated doesn't mean that reputable men and women of science are manipulating it for the hell of it.

 

[dogtowner]

There are publications used to publish psuedo-science that will publish almost anything for a price. John Bohannon had the media telling people to eat chocolate for weight loss after publishing a fake study. That doesn't mean that reputable publications are publishing fraudulent studies for cash. A properly constructed computer model is useful for analyzing complex data, just because they can be manipulated doesn't mean that reputable men and women of science are manipulating it for the hell of it.

They can be helpful if the basis of the science is there. NOT the case here. And Jones / Mann have not shown themselves to be reputable.

 

[nytegeek]

There is a preponderance of evidence from other sources that are more reputable. You would have to be trying to ignore it to not see it. Anyhow, I'm not going to waste effort trying to convince somebody whose mind is made up. I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.

 

[palerider]

I agree. You probably have not seen enough of palerider to know that he doesn't believe in quantum mechanics or the work of Plank and Einstein a century ago. He has an ability to pick and choose what hard science is crap and what he can misinterpret for his own ends.
I take no stance in the inexact climate science, but if anyone misconstrues or misuses accepted hard science or math to make a point, I will call them on it.

I think the two sides are too polarized to turn off emotion.

Its all lies with you all the time, isn't it. The fact that I don't believe every claim made regarding QM does not mean that I don't believe any of it....as to Planck and Einstein...not sure where that comes from but clearly you will say whatever you feel necessary in an effort to support your belief.

I asked you for some actual observed evidence for your claim that energy moves from cool to warm with no work being done to make it happen...you provide a mind experiment that is nothing but work being done from start to finish and then say see? Clearly, you operate from a position of faith whereas, I am more a reality, observed, empirical evidence sort of guy. Being that sort of guy, I am always asking for observed, empirical evidence...mathematical models are cute and cuddly and all, but they are not reality...so hey, maybe you have some actual empirical evidence to support the climate change hoax now. Here are a few questions..either you or some other warmer can answer them or, as I expect, you, or some other warmer can not.

Do you have any actual empirical evidence that would support the claim that the climate today is unprecedented? What sort of observed data do you have that prove that the climate today is outside the bounds of natural variability....or even approaching the borderlands of natural variability for that matter? If you are depending on proxy data, what sort of proxy data do you have that would have the sort of resolution required to make any claim at all about the short climate window we are talking about here?

The claim that mankind is altering the global climate which must mean that climate science is able to tease out a human fingerprint from all of the climate noise. They must be able to do it otherwise the claim that man is changing the climate to his own detriment would be nothing more than hysterical alarmist handwaving based on nothing more than political motivations.. So what sort of empirical evidence can you provide that would put a precise number on the climate sensitivity to CO2? A precise number would be required if you are going to claim that X percent of the warming we have seen over the past century and a half is due to mankind.

The climate is a chaotic system. Do you believe that climate science can state with any confidence at all that climate science knows all of the natural variables that effect the climate....how much each variable alone affects the climate (put a number to it) and how that numerical variable changes when it interacts with one, or multiple other variables? They would need to be able to do that with a high degree of accuracy in order to identify a human fingerprint within the chaos that is the natural variability of the climate.

Aside from the claim that man is causing warming...there is the claim that warming is going to cause us harm. Do you believe climate science can state with any certainty precisely what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth? Upon what empirical evidence do they base their claim?

This action that climate science wants for me to take based upon their claim is going to cost money...and if they want everyone to act, it is going to cost a lot of money....a whole great big stinking pile of money. Money that we might use, for example to address the very real and serious environmental problems facing this planet right now.... pollution, habitat loss, etc. How much change in the climate do you believe will result from our taking this action that they want? What will the cost to benefit ratio be if we take this action...keep in mind that unless they can state with any precision what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is, any claim that the cost is worth it doesn't carry much weight. Relative to the present temperature, will this action they want us to take move us towards, or away from the ideal temperature for life on planet earth...and for that matter, can they give any assurance based on real empirical evidence that making this change will result in any alteration of the present climate at all.

Now I know that I am just a dumb old Neanderthal in the eyes of erudite elites such as yourself, but these are the questions that us dumb old Neanderthals have. Mathematical models may be enough for you, but not for me. A mathematical model telling you how wonderful and beautiful, and cleverly made the emperor's clothes are might convince you, but it just doesn't cut it for me....To my eyes, he is still naked as a jay bird.

Can you answer any of these few questions with anything like convincing, empirical data? Can you even answer one with anything like convincing, empirical data?

My bet is that at best, you will misrepresent something I have said at some time, maybe dance around one or two of the questions, and ultimately not have, but never admit that you don't have anything like enough actual observed, empirical evidence to convince a child that man is altering the global climate...much less a thinking person.

 

[palerider]

There are publications used to publish psuedo-science that will publish almost anything for a price. John Bohannon had the media telling people to eat chocolate for weight loss after publishing a fake study. That doesn't mean that reputable publications are publishing fraudulent studies for cash. A properly constructed computer model is useful for analyzing complex data, just because they can be manipulated doesn't mean that reputable men and women of science are manipulating it for the hell of it.

Climate science as a whole, is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade which was initially perpetrated by a couple of bad actors, or piss poor scientists...depending on what you care to believe. Enough evidence has come out in the past few decades that if they were good scientists, they would have admitted their errors and attempted to correct them....as they haven't and have expended enormous resources in keeping their actual data hidden from view, one can only presume that they were bad actors.

This bad early data keeps being referenced and used as climate science progresses which just compounds, and corrupts the entire field...add to that, the fact that climate science has been hijacked in its infancy by politics and lavished with money from that very hijacker and you have a recipe for fraud on an epic scale.

 

[Johnlox]

...depending on what you care to believe.

My favorite quote of the entire thread! "...depending on what you care to believe." Science, it seems, cannot prevail in the face of belief, whether we like it or not. Whether fact or fiction, we ultimately get to decide what is true for ourselves. Even in the face of blindingly obvious evidence, we can still choose not to believe. It's frustrating, this whole being human thing. How are we to convince anyone of anything when they can ultimately play the human card and flatly deny what most consider solid, undeniable evidence? Wish I knew.

 

[Lagboltz]

Its all lies with you all the time, isn't it. The fact that I don't believe every claim made regarding QM does not mean that I don't believe any of it....as to Planck and Einstein...not sure where that comes from but clearly you will say whatever you feel necessary in an effort to support your belief.

Hey, palerider! My favorite penpal is back arguing the same old misunderstandings of physics.

These are quotes from you in the thread Settled Science
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/settled-science.17472/

Post 34: "quantum mechanics is not proven science."
Post 34 "And you believe in a hoax....You act as if quantum mechanics were scientific law"
Post 39: "Quantum mechanics is an ad hoc construct that attempts to explain things we can't explain"
Post 40 "Do I question QM?.....damned right"
Post 47: "it has to do with post modern science abandoning reality for fantasy"
Post 47: "Once you have proven the existence of photons, then we can move on"
Post 57: "post modern science has left the realm of reality and entered into a fantasy land"
Post 57: About those photons that you seem to be so sure exist?

The reference to Planck and Einstein refers to their work on radiation thermodynamics. They and textbooks on thermodynamics say that radiation is exchanged between bodies no matter what their temperature differences. But you insist that two bodies at arbitrary temperatures cannot both radiate at each other and you have said that two light bulbs cannot radiate energy to each other, and cause a black streak between them. You are just wrong on so many levels.

 

[dogtowner]

My favorite quote of the entire thread! "...depending on what you care to believe." Science, it seems, cannot prevail in the face of belief, whether we like it or not. Whether fact or fiction, we ultimately get to decide what is true for ourselves. Even in the face of blindingly obvious evidence, we can still choose not to believe. It's frustrating, this whole being human thing. How are we to convince anyone of anything when they can ultimately play the human card and flatly deny what most consider solid, undeniable evidence? Wish I knew.

so there's been no warming for what, 18 years despite increased CO2 and still there is a preponderance of evidence ?

 

[palerider]

Post 34: "quantum mechanics is not proven science."

How much of QM is proven?...not via mathematical model...but proven.

Post 34 "And you believe in a hoax....You act as if quantum mechanics were scientific law"

Is QM scientific law now? Any links to support your suggestion that I was wrong in saying it?

"Quantum mechanics is an ad hoc construct that attempts to explain things we can't explain"

You think it is something else? QM runs into contradictions before it gets past hydrogen in the periodic table...what would you call it? You think anyone actually "understands" what is going on at the sub atomic level at this point? Feel free to point me to the scientist who claims to actually understand QM...and feels like he can accurately describe and explain everything that is happening at the sub atomic level.

"Do I question QM?.....damned right"

You don't question a line of scientific thinking that runs into irreconcilable contradictions before it gets past the first element in the periodic table? Sounds like faith to me.

"it has to do with post modern science abandoning reality for fantasy"

So your claim is that QM is proven by actual observation and measurement.....not by mathematical models that remain unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable and unprovable? Any proof to support that line of thinking?

"Once you have proven the existence of photons, then we can move on"

I can't help but notice that proof of said photons was never forthcoming?

So as I predicted, you weren't able to answer a single question....you attempted to misrepresent my position by posting statements I made to which you still don't have answers....all you managed to do there was highlight your faith.