(07-17-2015 11:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 10:55 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  Do you really believe that it's only ice core samples, and ONLY a few location? They use ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems to create climate proxies.

Replication that can be performed anywhere on the globe.

Sigh...

I didn't feel like listing every piece of evidence... just the common ones. Trees aren't everywhere and most of them from thousands of years ago don't exist anymore... and we haven't investigated probably half or more of the earth's fossil and sediment record.

But the point is that none of those things are thermometers/weather stations. They are 'evidence' put into a model that is subject to adjustment which is my point. 90% of the things you mentioned only tell you 'approximately' what the 'weather' was at that one single location at 'approximately' this date. I can tell you what the temperature was on June 16th 2015 at 2am 500 miles off the coast of Greenland and thousands of other stations across the globe at precisely the same moment. We have extreme confidence in the accuracy of those stations and can observe all of the OTHER inputs to 'climate' like solar flares and ocean currents.

What was the surface temperature 500 miles off the coast of Greenland at 2am in the year 500? Was that an el nino or la nina year... or better asked, was it more or less of an el nino or la nina than 499 or 501? How many global storms did we have and was that more or less than the 10 years before and after that?

Now, let's talk about 2,000 bc... or 10,000 bc.

Those are models, not observations. Models are subject to degrees of inaccuracy... and no... no matter HOW many inputs you add (your list), and especially knowing that we haven't studied more than half of the planet for this evidence... I don't believe for a fraction of a moment that we can estimate within fractions of degrees over hundreds of years, which is precisely what is required by these conclusions.

That doesn't make them wrong. It could be right or it could be far worse... it just makes anyone claiming it as a 'fact' to be speaking falsely.

Have scientists claimed otherwise? I'm sure that journalists, lobbyists, and politicians do, but they do the same thing with other scientific subjects.

It sounds like you're asking for something close to perfection, which simply will not happen. When it comes down to it, we have a reasonable idea (Something much better than an educated guess) what the climate was like throughout history.

Is it perfect? No

Is that a reason to disregard them? No

(07-17-2015 12:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  When it comes down to it, we have a reasonable idea (Something much better than an educated guess) what the climate was like throughout history.

So I ask, again in the most simple of terms: If we can alter global temperatures by our activity or our lack of activity, and now you have stated that we know what the temperature was throughout history, what is the ideal temperature we want?

Why do you and other alarmists keep ignoring this question? You're telling me I have to change. Then tell me what the goal is of this change.

(07-17-2015 12:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Have scientists claimed otherwise? I'm sure that journalists, lobbyists, and politicians do, but they do the same thing with other scientific subjects.

I'm sure SOME have... as they are not immune from making livings as journalists, lobbyists or politicians... mostly journalists for those that do, including some 'professors'. If you get paid to write a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal, I think that by definition makes you a journalist... yet some people act as if these people are beyond reproach (when they agree with their conclusions)

Quote:It sounds like you're asking for something close to perfection, which simply will not happen. When it comes down to it, we have a reasonable idea (Something much better than an educated guess) what the climate was like throughout history.

Is it perfect? No

Is that a reason to disregard them? No

You're misunderstanding me so I'll try and be more clear...

I don't think anyone (other than a few loons that every 'cause' has) argues with the scientific method behind this data. Nor do they argue with the possibilities projected by some scientists.

But the fact is that journalists, politicians and lobbyists have untold trillions of our tax dollars in play on this issue, and they are using this 'scientific data' to support their claims. Those who are 'climate skeptics' (the topic of the OP) are most often simply people reminding everyone of the difference between 'scientific theory' and things like facts and probabilities when it comes to projecting the future. The data is subject to adaptation, refinement and of course, being 'wrong' enough such that the projected outcomes end up being completely wrong (we don't have to be off by much to avoid the cataclysmic predictions being made)

Those politicians, journalists and lobbyists are claiming 'settled science' on the issue, and quite frankly, I don't think enough of those scientists are correcting them as to what is settled and what isn't. PERHAPS that is because they don't control the press and those other people do, but that is why people like me point it out.

You seem to get it so I suspect you're not an alarmist... other than perhaps as a 'possibility' that means we should be as clean as possible... but I know that you accept that there are 'others' who aren't as reasonable.

I suppose I AM asking for something closer to perfection before agreeing to spend trillions of dollars to prevent something that a) we don't have any idea how to actually prevent, especially globally and b) has such a fine line of 'win/lose'... but that doesn't mean that I'm not willing to do ANYTHING or spend ANY money.

(07-17-2015 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 12:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Have scientists claimed otherwise? I'm sure that journalists, lobbyists, and politicians do, but they do the same thing with other scientific subjects.

I'm sure SOME have... as they are not immune from making livings as journalists, lobbyists or politicians... mostly journalists for those that do, including some 'professors'. If you get paid to write a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal, I think that by definition makes you a journalist... yet some people act as if these people are beyond reproach (when they agree with their conclusions)

Quote:It sounds like you're asking for something close to perfection, which simply will not happen. When it comes down to it, we have a reasonable idea (Something much better than an educated guess) what the climate was like throughout history.

Is it perfect? No

Is that a reason to disregard them? No

You're misunderstanding me so I'll try and be more clear...

I don't think anyone (other than a few loons that every 'cause' has) argues with the scientific method behind this data. Nor do they argue with the possibilities projected by some scientists.

But the fact is that journalists, politicians and lobbyists have untold trillions of our tax dollars in play on this issue, and they are using this 'scientific data' to support their claims. Those who are 'climate skeptics' (the topic of the OP) are most often simply people reminding everyone of the difference between 'scientific theory' and things like facts and probabilities when it comes to projecting the future. The data is subject to adaptation, refinement and of course, being 'wrong' enough such that the projected outcomes end up being completely wrong (we don't have to be off by much to avoid the cataclysmic predictions being made)

Those politicians, journalists and lobbyists are claiming 'settled science' on the issue, and quite frankly, I don't think enough of those scientists are correcting them as to what is settled and what isn't. PERHAPS that is because they don't control the press and those other people do, but that is why people like me point it out.

You seem to get it so I suspect you're not an alarmist... other than perhaps as a 'possibility' that means we should be as clean as possible... but I know that you accept that there are 'others' who aren't as reasonable.

As far as I'm concerned, alarmists are just as bad as skeptics when it comes to understanding the subject being discussed. They parrot what the media spoon feeds them, which was probably not well researched in the first place.

My primary concern is the gulf between what scientists say and what's being reported. What's being reported is far more polarized than it should be.

My problem is that the so called climate scientists, starting all the way back with the first iteration of the IPCC, were paid to come up with research that supported a particular viewpoint. Follow the money. Interesting that AGW supporters use this line regarding skeptics, supposedly all funded by big money from the fossil fuel companies. Those companies can't hold a candle to all the $$$ that flows from government to create their narrative so they can push wealth redistribution schemes purported to "fix" the problem.

While AGW apostles and true believers will deny it and not buy it, reports from some of the scientists involved in the initial IPCC panel with different viewpoints found their research did not make it into the report. Some quit the panel, disgusted. They describe a process where the conclusion was preordained. Those with contrary viewpoints found themselves silenced. Some scientific journals wouldn't agree to publish their papers. They had circled the wagons. See: east Anglica.

(07-17-2015 01:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  As far as I'm concerned, alarmists are just as bad as skeptics when it comes to understanding the subject being discussed. They parrot what the media spoon feeds them, which was probably not well researched in the first place.

My primary concern is the gulf between what scientists say and what's being reported. What's being reported is far more polarized than it should be.

My only caveat to this is that I believe that a healthy dose of skepticism is entirely warranted when someone is asking you for money, which they are.

I suppose I'm differentiating between a skeptic and a 'denier'.... though the term 'denier' has been wrongly applied to anyone who doesn't buy in hook, line and sinker.

An alarmist almost by definition is an extremist, but a skeptic is not.

(07-20-2015 11:04 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 01:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  As far as I'm concerned, alarmists are just as bad as skeptics when it comes to understanding the subject being discussed. They parrot what the media spoon feeds them, which was probably not well researched in the first place.

My primary concern is the gulf between what scientists say and what's being reported. What's being reported is far more polarized than it should be.

My only caveat to this is that I believe that a healthy dose of skepticism is entirely warranted when someone is asking you for money, which they are.

I suppose I'm differentiating between a skeptic and a 'denier'.... though the term 'denier' has been wrongly applied to anyone who doesn't buy in hook, line and sinker.

An alarmist almost by definition is an extremist, but a skeptic is not.

I think the reverse is also true. Anyone who takes AGW seriously is an alarmist who bought it hook, line and sinker.

(07-16-2015 03:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 03:04 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Warmth is good.

So good:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/07...bees-video

How are things up there in the Palouse ?

(07-20-2015 04:11 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 03:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 03:04 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Warmth is good.

So good:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/07...bees-video

How are things up there in the Palouse ?

I live north of there now in Spokanistan. Making good money so I can't complain.

My question is, if there's really a climate change what's causing it and what can the average Joe do to amend this? My other question is, how much is the fact that there's more people in cities thus more cars thus more roads that get mighty hot in the summer be contributing to this? Are we to pull up all our streets in order to cool off the city? Just asking.

(07-20-2015 05:46 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  My question is, if there's really a climate change what's causing it and what can the average Joe do to amend this? My other question is, how much is the fact that there's more people in cities thus more cars thus more roads that get mighty hot in the summer be contributing to this? Are we to pull up all our streets in order to cool off the city? Just asking.

I dunno, store all of your farts in sealed jars?

I already have some of that, you want to buy any? You can find it in Amazon.com.

(07-20-2015 06:17 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I already have some of that, you want to buy any? You can find it in Amazon.com.

Good, you're already doing your part. Cutting down on emissions AND profiting.

It's sad we can't have a reasonable discussion about something as quantifiable as climate.

(07-20-2015 06:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's sad we can't have a reasonable discussion about something as quantifiable as climate.

It's always the same arguments: Climategate, urban heat islands, Antarctic ice extent, 18 year pause, etc.

It doesn't matter that all of these have been explained or debunked, people still use them.

(07-20-2015 06:38 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 06:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's sad we can't have a reasonable discussion about something as quantifiable as climate.

It's always the same arguments: Climategate, urban heat islands, Antarctic ice extent, 18 year pause, etc.

It doesn't matter that all of these have been explained or debunked, people still use them.

Don't forget dismissing it because, well, some people have been alarmists about it. As if that somehow negates the legitimate risks and threat it poses.

Don't worry. May be a cooling coming. And that poses a legitimate threat.

(07-20-2015 07:13 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't worry. May be a cooling coming. And that poses a legitimate threat.

Says who?

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/h-ster...al-warming

(07-20-2015 07:25 PM)Paul M Wrote:  http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/h-ster...al-warming

Did you even look at the study he cites?



I can't make that up, literally the first sentence of the abstract states "Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming" . Nothings says "I know better than an international scientific consensus which includes literally every major national scientific body from the US, China, India, Russia, Pakistan, Europe, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Israel" like not bothering to even read the first sentence of a studies abstract.

As for his second source, it's not even a study, it's a single scientist talking about a similar subject, and not a peer reviewed or published journal. His link doesn't even give any specific information in regards to how great of a cooling she predicts or if she's arguing this explains warming we're seeing now. It's literally just an announcement about her speaking to the Royal Astronomical Society claiming to predict solar cycles, something we've known about for decades. No information on her model or anything.

You're like a real life onion article, I can't tell if you're actually a very intelligent person who is just very committed to his satire, or if you're just this completely inept at understanding basic concepts.