That's the thing, one side points out correctly how inaccurate the models are and the other side takes the same models and claims the inaccuracies are pretty gosh darn good actually. Hard to argue with their inaccurate logic.

(06-28-2016 06:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 06:20 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 05:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 05:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 04:41 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  No, we aren't.


Pretty much all of the most significant scientific societies in the U.S.?

I think it's more likely that you're stupid.

It's why their climate models have been bang on correct for 20 years... Oh. Nevermind.

Is "bang on correct" a technical term? I'd like to know where it falls on a scale ranging from "absolutely inaccurate" to "absolutely accurate". Keep in mind that "highly accurate", "moderately accurate", and "partially accurate" are also on this spectrum.

It's interesting how graphs can be used to paint completely different pictures:

I tell you what, skippy. Why dont you lay out the forecast for the climate 5 years from now. (Keep in mind we have already done this once, and you all swore the poles would be melted by 2012. Wait, you all also though an icve age was coming in the 70's, and DEMANDED we pump ash into the atmosphere to heat us up. )

But go ahead. 5 years from now, what does your "bang on" computer models say the climate will be? You have two answers:

Answer 1 will be so stupidly insignificant of an impact that noone will give a damned.

Answer 2 will be that of extreme dread and dire consequences. Of course, that one wont be close to coming true.


Bu go ahead. Let's hear what those bang on projections say will happen in 5 year.


I'll project that you will forecast:



but instead we will have

Remember when they told us our asphalt roads were reflecting too much heat back into space and the earth was going to get too cold? It was only 40 years ago.

Yeah I am still waiting for NYC to be under water...


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

(06-28-2016 04:41 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 04:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

No, we aren't.

Yes we are. It is the only absolute certainty for each living person.

(06-28-2016 05:55 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 04:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capi...ck-it-off/

Quote:In a letter dated Tuesday, 31 leading U.S. scientific organizations sent members of Congress a no-nonsense message that human-caused climate change is real, poses risks to society and is backed by overwhelming evidence.

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,” the letter states. “This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”

I'm willing to buy that some form of climate change is occurring. Climate change is something that does happen naturally. I'm also willing to buy that human activity contributes to the change to some unknown degree.

The bolded portion of the quote is where they totally lose me. It is such an overstatement of the facts and contrary to the overwhelming scientific knowledge we've accumulated regarding the natural world that it cannot be taken seriously.

They are doing what academics do, argue their point to an extreme to try to win the argument.

One thing above all about climate is true. Scientists have a very poor understanding of long range climate cycles.

(06-28-2016 05:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Dear 31 leading scientific organizations,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please let me know when you are ready to get serious about discussing the future of energy and stop pretending that just conservation and wind and solar power can make the emissions reductions when nonrenewable are barely staying ahead of the new demand for energy.

And do not complain that people are burying their heads in the sand about science when many greens and scientists have their heads buried in the sand with respect to the engineering and mathematical realities.

Thanks.
EE

Exactly!

Come to us with a realistic approach that doesn't A. destroy our economy and B. destroy our way of life and we can talk. Come to us with your usual unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky solutions and you'll be ignored. Again.

(06-28-2016 06:23 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I just hope we get enough emissions out there to cancel out the next ice age.

The ridiculous claim that they understand what the climate cycles are when some new claims are that the reason the models have failed is that we were actually about to go into an ice age, so we haven't warmed as rapidly as they expected.

(06-28-2016 06:54 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Remember when they told us our asphalt roads were reflecting too much heat back into space and the earth was going to get too cold? It was only 40 years ago.

I remember the cover of Time or Newsweek in the 70s with the picture of smokestacks asking the question, Are our emissions bringing on the next ice age?

And the reason for that was that the Earth was cooling at the time. The number of hurricanes was down (which lead to a lot of building in bad locations). So they assumed man must have caused the change.

The left doesn't care about emails and fraud from their politicians. They are consistent in that emails and fraud are over looked in their scientist too.

(06-28-2016 05:41 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 05:37 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Miami will be underwater by 2015 and there will be an ice age in 1996.

It's hard for scientists to get gubment cheese without fear-mongering.

I'll just post the official statement adopted by the American Physical Society:

Quote:Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

Note that they're both acknowledging that there's an amount of uncertainty involved, they aren't denying that climate change is real. It's a more nuanced statement, which may go over some people's heads, but it represents how scientists actually think. Scientists constantly work with uncertainty which means from time to time they'll get something wrong.

How can human influence be growing after 15 years of gubmint action on alarm?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(06-28-2016 06:07 PM)Claw Wrote:  It no longer matters if it is true. They have cried wolf too many times. No one cares.

Exactly. Someone gets it. It simply doesn't even matter. Even if it is real, it is happening so slowly, we'll adjust on the fly.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

... "all ask for money."

It's important to complete a headline.

(06-28-2016 06:20 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 05:58 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The climate is always changing, now give me more money.

Yeah, that sums up what I was trying to say in fewer words.

"the best design is the simplest one that works" - A. Einstein

(06-28-2016 07:38 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 06:07 PM)Claw Wrote:  It no longer matters if it is true. They have cried wolf too many times. No one cares.

Exactly. Someone gets it. It simply doesn't even matter. Even if it is real, it is happening so slowly, we'll adjust on the fly.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Never mind that we have already passed what they were telling us was the point of no return.

The urgency to act used to be paramount. Notice how it's not quit as important anymore?

(06-28-2016 07:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 05:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Dear 31 leading scientific organizations,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please let me know when you are ready to get serious about discussing the future of energy and stop pretending that just conservation and wind and solar power can make the emissions reductions when nonrenewable are barely staying ahead of the new demand for energy.

And do not complain that people are burying their heads in the sand about science when many greens and scientists have their heads buried in the sand with respect to the engineering and mathematical realities.

Thanks.
EE

Exactly!

Come to us with a realistic approach that doesn't A. destroy our economy and B. destroy our way of life and we can talk. Come to us with your usual unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky solutions and you'll be ignored. Again.

IMO, the single best analysis of anthropogenic climate change has been done by the Copenhagen Consensus, the Danish think tank composed of economists who have performed economic analyses on many of the problems on our planet. Although they accept the premise of climate change, they show that there is no economically viable solution and further downplay any adverse economic catastrophes from non action.

Wait... so are we going to be underwater in the next 10 years, or aren't we?

(06-29-2016 08:00 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Wait... so are we going to be underwater in the next 10 years, or aren't we?

let's call in a century now....it will still be the fault of the xx/xy faction....just ask 'em.....