cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Climate change ?

chrsplmr
Level 18
708 Views
40 REPLIES 40

Sad to say, but Arne is exactly right, the true science behind climate change (for it or against it) is buried in the politics. Same with many other things. Science should technically be unbiased, and the peer-review process is designed to screen out erroneous publications, namely honest mistakes. It's the coding idea of "with many eyes, all bugs are shallow". It cannot screen out political bias, because that is a function of the reviewers' bias. That's why everyone can agree that the US government is borrowing money (spending more than it makes), but not on how to deal with the problem, or if it is a problem at all.
I am disturbed because I cannot break my system...found out there were others trying to cope! We have a support group on here, if your system will not break, please join!
http://rog.asus.com/forum/group.php?groupid=16
We now have 178 people whose systems will not break! Yippee! 🙂
LINUX Users, we have a group!
http://rog.asus.com/forum/group.php?groupid=23

Arne Saknussemm wrote:
It's funny but the evidence for it is all over the place. Right there in your graph which shows solar activity declining while temperatures rise at the end; when even the IPCC has had to admit that global temperatures have fallen over the last 17 years.

I was actually wondering about evidence of financial bias creeping into research like I said... Do you have any?
Arne Saknussemm wrote:
There has been no warming in the troposphere it has been at the surface which is where warming from the sun happens.

The troposhphere is the lowest point of the atmosphere which includes the surface...
Arne Saknussemm wrote:
I won't go on in this thread.

That's too bad, since good ideas stand up to critical scrutiny.

I wonder why the only people who disagree with climate science are people who are not trained climate scientists?


CPU: i7 7700k | GPU: Titan X (p) | PSU: Seasonic 1000W Platinum | MB: ASUS Maximus IX Extreme | SSD: Samsung 960 evo | HDD: WD Caviar 160GB | RAM: Gskill 32GB 3200mhz | OS: Win 10 64bit Home

Mandangalo18 wrote:
I was actually wondering about evidence of financial bias creeping into research like I said... Do you have any?


The figures are all around us...just look at total financing for climate science in 1980 and contrast that to now. Look at "climate financing" look at Al Gore http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-global-warming-and-the-carbon-finance-business/5365419 . As others have said...follow the money. There are thousands living off this gravy train and all have a vested interest in maintaining the momentum.

You should know that the warming in the troposphere predicted in the models was not at the surface in the boundary layer but much higher....and the reason for launching all those weather balloons. There is no warming found there.

Please don't confuse my unwillingness to go on too much in this thread as an inability to back up my position or try to paint it as such.

Thankfully the pure propaganda that no climate scientists disagree with Mann made global warming is very untrue...http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/19/meaningless-consensus-on-climate-change/

mullet
Level 10
Follow the money.

chrsplmr
Level 18
Well for one thing claiming and charting research from 1800's in guesstimates surely can not be called 'science'.

I wonder why the sale of 'carbon credits' and other revenue generators are front and center over 'fixing' the
'alleged' issue which all agree 'man' has no control or power.

And still I wonder in the 'millions' of years and forest fires that raged for years this 'doom' has not happened.

Climates and Cycles happen. Few have studied the 10,000 year cycles of weather patterns. So far
it is but another wealth and power scheme with no hope of effecting the slightest outcome.

I can only hope that the earth is not simply shaking off the infestation of man.
In presenting the 'facts', the 'truth' is being ignored. imho. .c.

mullet wrote:
Follow the money.

Nailed it.

chrsplmr wrote:
Well for one thing claiming and charting research from 1800's in guesstimates surely can not be called 'science'

Why do you think they are guessing? The reality is that it's empirical: http://climatechange.umaine.edu/icecores/IceCore/Ice_Core_101.html

Arne, both of the links you provided are not sourced. You've been talking a lot about not being a "sheep" and using critical thinking, and the first and most fundamental step in critical thinking is to follow the sources. I've been linking to peer-review research and the most respected scientific institutions in the world. All the evidence presented against my position has been unsourced and from conspiracy theorist websites. Do you think that unsourced opinion pieces are as strong as primary-source research material? And, wow does that second one use some emotional language or what? As a critical thinker, I'm sure you know that when a piece uses such emotional language, it's a red flag about the content of its logic. So why would you use it?
And why you think that the National Academy of Sciences puts out propaganda, I don't know.

As for the warming in the troposphere, let's stay on topic. What I was saying about the troposphere was that what you would expect from the sun warming the planet was not observed, do you have anything to say about that?


CPU: i7 7700k | GPU: Titan X (p) | PSU: Seasonic 1000W Platinum | MB: ASUS Maximus IX Extreme | SSD: Samsung 960 evo | HDD: WD Caviar 160GB | RAM: Gskill 32GB 3200mhz | OS: Win 10 64bit Home

Mandangalo18 wrote:
Do you think that unsourced opinion pieces are as strong as primary-source research material?


Nooo, goodness, I'd never give the global warming research material that high a status. LOL

I'm not sure what you are after Mandangalo18...a scientific paper listing all financial trails and detailing all cherry picking of data. That's the whole problem and the problem a number of people in this thread are pointing out (not just myself by the way ;-)). There is not much good science because the field has been distorted so far that funding is not given to anybody who is not looking to further the man made warming line! I have a lot of stuff on my work laptop I'll post it up.

As for the warming in the troposphere that is the whole topic! I find it strange you think that is not for discussion since it is the one of the centre pieces of the man made global warming models. The other centre piece is the warming of the oceans and NOAA have just released the data from a 5 year study by 3000 autonomous ocean diving robots....guess what they found? That's right no warming of the oceans in the areas studied over that time..in fact a slight decrease...

Any rethinking....no just completely unfounded guesses about the "missing heat" being "there but in the deep ocean" or "it's just a rest period but the disaster is coming"

There are papers out there http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2012/01/swsc120022.pdf and I hope anyone reading them can see the torturous lengths the writers have to go to to not upset too much their warmist colleagues and have themselves blacklisted. This is an example of a paper that basically argues that past climate changes correlate well to solar forcing (in times without any man made influence on CO2 etc.) You can see in the conclusion however that they tie themselves in knots to say that that solar forcing is not the only possible mechanism etc. etc. In part good science in part fear...

As for the propaganda: http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/circa-2010-pnas-expert-credibility-in-climate-change-debun...
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/yet-more-problems-anderegg-et-al-denier-black-list-paper
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012507/

The "paper" itself where you can read first hand the inadequacies of the methods used such as no effort to rule out circular citation etc. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Zka17
Level 16
My vote for existence of global warming came from my very own experience. Simply from looking at presence of snow in my home town. When I was a small kid we had snow all the winter, we could enjoy all winter activities. In the last 10-15 years there were a lot of winters with very little snow if any at all - I'm really sorry for today kids!

However, my point of view regarding the warming climate is that it is a natural change. Now it's warming up, then time will come when it will cool back - focus is on constant change. Can humans influence this change? Who knows? Locally maybe, globally... well, we may not be so powerful as of yet... maybe temporarily, for short time... but certainly not for extended time, like years or decades...

And no, I don't have any scientific data to support my opinion. It's just empirical and based on pieces of infos my brain put together.

As of science and peer-reviews - just be very careful!!! As a scientist myself, although another field, I do have some overview about how things are working in science. And it's not everything so clear or so true... In science, as in most things around us, are trends and fashions. It is meaning that some subjects are taken out and given more focus to them. Usually this happens when some new discovery has been made or some brake-through happened in some fields. Most of the resources will be allocated to that particular subject. It means more money, which will result in more people getting involved (by training new scientists and recruiting more administration). Then, it will happen something which will take things in wrong direction - the scientific and administrative apparatus will become too big on the particular subject. And that will create problems... The basic instinct of every living thing is survival. The large population of scientists and administrators will try to keep alive the field. A lot of "polluting results" will be born, administration will continue to grow - and then the whole thing goes away... and next subject/research are will be growing...

You may wonder why I included administrators in this picture... well, because at this point it seems to me that they're bringing down most of the blooming fields. Yes, science needs auxiliary personnel too, like any other field, and among them the administrative personnel is very important too. However, when the number of administration grows over the number of scientists, when administrators takes over the lead in research and yes, they get into the peer-review process(!!!) - then will the whole thing go down...

So, getting back to the original question if Climate Change is Fact or Hoax... - my personal view is that a general warming can be observed, but so what?! Humans can adapt to it... and then there are other things which may/will influence the human beings directly and in much shorter term...

He-he, I became philosophic... sorry guys... 🙂

bbs428
Level 9
Just my 2 cent's worth:

When the Climate changer crowd (formerly known as global warmers) ridicule and put down any opposing theories and arguments, it should be a red flag warning that it has descended into politics, driven by money grubbing politico's.

They operate from the same playbook - you must attack the dissenting source's, discredit and smear them publicly while hyping and sensationalizing the argument that the world will end at any moment due to the wealthy nations indifference to polluting the environment.

Sadly all this junk science is now taught in schools as an exact science and dissenting points of view are not tolerated.

In my humble opinion - that while pollution of all kinds needs to be cleaned up and limited in scope, CO2 is not a pollutant.

Furthermore - the sun and celestial variances effect our climate to a far more extent than currently realized by the Gov. grant scientists.

These same scientists are now baffled at the suns lack of output lately. As they are baffled at the lack of hurricanes last season. They are routinely baffled when the climate doesn't do what they predict.
Everyday scientists have to revise theories as new information is discovered or old information is found to be at fault or not complete.

Quote from Wiki:
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings, leading to a more accurate theory. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light)

4 billion years of "climate change" and now the answer, after 400 or so years of observation, is to tax (the rich) carbon footprint countries and send the money to (the poor) developing countries. Really?

LOL!!! Funny how that coincides with the fascist politico's demand that we redistribute the wealth to the less fortunate. So admirable.... as long as they - can skim the wealth from their tax schemes and place it in their portfolios, as long as they - remain in the elite power structure orchestrating their vision of fairness for all, (remember they know so much more than you or I) and as long as the rest of us in the "herd," stay in our place, distracted by everyday living.

Coincidence? Yea right... it's just to F'ing predictable.
Asus Maximus VI Hero mb, Intel 4770k cpu, Team Vulcan, 16gb 1600 memory, Asus 660ti dcu II oc gpu, Asus cd burner, Corsair 650tx psu, Seagate 1TB hybrid drive, Swiftech 320 liq. cooler.

"Under Capitalism, Man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

It's not that anything can't be up for the discussion, it's that we'll never make any progress if we don't hold a train of thought and jump around subjects. So thanks for the chat all, and take care!


CPU: i7 7700k | GPU: Titan X (p) | PSU: Seasonic 1000W Platinum | MB: ASUS Maximus IX Extreme | SSD: Samsung 960 evo | HDD: WD Caviar 160GB | RAM: Gskill 32GB 3200mhz | OS: Win 10 64bit Home