Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

[Emn1ty]

58 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

And neither of you or the other guy has yet to come up with a SINGLE name of a scientist that doesn't support man made climate change, not even the the quack ones.. . So you're basically supporting a hypothesis that you can't even name a single real scientist that believes in ? what makes you believe it, you think you know more bout climate science than doctorates and professors ? 

Or you can realize my only criticism of your post was the overstatement of certainty. It's not certain, 97% isn't 100%. And you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who can directly tie human emissions to warming with any kind of quantification beyond vague generalities.

[TPreston]

2 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who can directly tie human emissions to warming with any kind of quantification beyond vague generalities.

For same reason you would be hard pressed to find anyone who can prove directly that Europa orbits the sun with any kind of quantification beyond vague generalities.

 

Absolute certainty only exists in your theology class.

 

Outside that the warming effect of c02 has been known for over 150 years http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf; And atmospheric co2 was more or less steady for the last 2000 years

 

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2013.html

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by TPreston

[Memphis]

7 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Then explain to me why it's not a 100% consensus. Also based on the consensus study there were dozens of papers which both explicitly or implicitly denied it. However again I'll point this to the actual climate thread where this has already been discussed and analyzed in depth. 

Its a debate for the same reason creationists still think there is a debate. Politicised by the non scientific. There is no debate about evolution at all in science, but some republicans (Pence) and the religious wouod be more than happy to try and cinvince you that there is.

[Defcon]

Its really amazing how people continue to claim that climate change is a hoax and defend the actions of Republicans and morons like Trump. 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

20 hours ago, DocM said:

 There's a short list on Wiki, including Dr. Freeman Dyson, people at Los Alamos, MIT, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr. Harrison Schmitt and overseas climate researchers.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

...not very many on that list.  

 

Here is a letter from 2300 American Scientists including 22 Nobel Prize winners ...

 

Parts of the letter ....

Quote

Scientific knowledge has played a critical role in making the United States a powerful and prosperous nation and improving the health and well-being of Americans and people around the world. From disease outbreaks to climate change to national security to technology innovation, people benefit when our nation’s policies are informed by science unfettered by inappropriate political or corporate influence.

 

/snip

 

Finally, Congress and the Trump administration should provide adequate resources to enable scientists to conduct research in the public interest and effectively and transparently carry out their agencies’ missions. The consequences are real: without this investment, children will be more vulnerable to lead poisoning, more people will be exposed to unsafe drugs and medical devices, and we will be less prepared to limit the impacts of increasing extreme weather and rising seas.

 

/snip

 

Full letter here.

[TPreston]

20 hours ago, DocM said:

 There's a short list on Wiki, including Dr. Freeman Dyson, people at Los Alamos, MIT, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr. Harrison Schmitt and overseas climate researchers.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

SSDN

 

8 hours ago, sidroc said:

Its a debate for the same reason creationists still think there is a debate. Politicised by the non scientific. There is no debate about evolution at all in science, but some republicans (Pence) and the religious wouod be more than happy to try and cinvince you that there is.

^

[Jim K Global Moderator]

 

....oh for FS.  Not enough face palms for this buffoonery.  

 

That is the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology ... citing Breitbart.  This is the Committee which has "jurisdiction over all energy research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated non-military energy laboratories; astronautical research and development, including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities; civil aviation research and development; environmental research and development; marine research; commercial application of energy technology; National Institute of Standards and Technology, standardization of weights and measures and the metric system; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; National Weather Service; outer space, including exploration and control thereof; science scholarships; scientific research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefor. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology shall review and study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating to non-military research and development."

 

....and they just cited Breitbart and signed it "icy silence from climate alarmists."

 

 

[TPreston]

Just now, jjkusaf said:

 

....oh for FS.  Not enough face palms for this buffoonery.  

 

That is the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology ... citing Breitbart.  This is the Committee which "jurisdiction over all energy research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated non-military energy laboratories; astronautical research and development, including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities; civil aviation research and development; environmental research and development; marine research; commercial application of energy technology; National Institute of Standards and Technology, standardization of weights and measures and the metric system; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; National Weather Service; outer space, including exploration and control thereof; science scholarships; scientific research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefor. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology shall review and study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating to non-military research and development."

 

....and they just cited Breitbart and signed it "icy silence from climate alarmists."

 

 

#PartyOfStupid What does temperature vernation over 6 months have to do with earths climate ?

 

A Nothing; They don't even know what the word means.

Edited December 2, 2016 by TPreston

[Jim K Global Moderator]

5 minutes ago, TPreston said:

#PartyOfStupid

Talk about ‘politicized science’

[Memphis]

18 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Or you can realize my only criticism of your post was the overstatement of certainty. It's not certain, 97% isn't 100%. And you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who can directly tie human emissions to warming with any kind of quantification beyond vague generalities.

If this is your idea of a non black and white consensus, then I will respond by saying that there is no consensus that smoking is bad for you because im sure i could dig up a single digit percentage of random professors who dont even have to be doctors who disagree.

[Emn1ty]

2 hours ago, sidroc said:

If this is your idea of a non black and white consensus, then I will respond by saying that there is no consensus that smoking is bad for you because im sure i could dig up a single digit percentage of random professors who dont even have to be doctors who disagree.

Except that you can verifiably show that cigarettes cause cancer. As in direct cause and result. This is why when discussing climate change it's not a matter of "fact" but agreement, consensus, and likelihoods. Even NASA uses this phrasing:

 

Quote

Scientific Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Quote

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Quote

American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

Sure, there are a host of agencies, academies, etc putting out statements that allude to absolute certainty among the scientific community. And even then, here's a description of the "oncontrovertible" claim by the APS.

 

Quote

The first sentence in the third paragraph states that without mitigating actions significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and health are likely. Such predicted disruptions are based on direct measurements (e.g., ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc.), on the study of past climate change phenomena, and on climate models. Climate models calculate the effects of natural and anthropogenic changes on the ecosphere, such as doubling of the CO2-equivalent [1] concentration relative to its pre-industrial value by the year 2100. These models have uncertainties associated with radiative response functions, especially clouds and water vapor. However, the models show that water vapor has a net positive feedback effect (in addition to CO2 and other gases) on global temperatures. The impact of clouds is less certain because of their dual role as scatterers of incoming solar radiation and as greenhouse contributors. The uncertainty in the net effect of human activity on climate is reflected in the broad distribution of the predicted magnitude of the consequence of doubling of the CO2-equivalent concentration. The uncertainty in the estimates from various climate models for doubling CO2-equivalent concentration is in the range of 1°C to 3°C with the probability distributions having long tails out to much larger temperature changes.

So we've warmed around 1.5°C over the last 100 years, that's within the margin of error described above. And as far as I am aware, so far none of our climate models have accurately predicted temperature trends out to even 10 or 20 years. By the time this becomes an issue (iirc, it was within 100-200 years) we'll likely not even be outputting nearly as much if any CO2. That will give time for the CO2 we have put into the atmosphere to cycle out (which all of what we have put in at present would be pretty much gone within the next 200 years, and that would be 30% of what we have now lasting possibly that long).

So to me, even if climate change is primarily human driven, the timelines just don't imply the alarmism we see. We're seeing the safest nuclear energy with many different kinds of reactors. Fusion power, and slow advances in solar (though I don't see that as being any form of primary source of power). And it's even more interesting how we target fossil fuels so heavily yet ignore natural gas despite it using similarly if not even worse greenhouse gases than coal plants. Look at the Porter Ranch gas leak which had a larger carbon footprint than Deepwater Horizon, and released 97,000 tons of methane (which is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2).

My opinion? It's all moot, because by the time any of this actually matters we'll be using other technologies because they are better, cleaner and safer. And by cleaner/safer I don't mean from a climate perspective, but a local health perspective (asthma, etc).

[Memphis]

4 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Except that you can verifiably show that cigarettes cause cancer. As in direct cause and result. This is why when discussing climate change it's not a matter of "fact" but agreement, consensus, and likelihoods. Even NASA uses this phrasing:

 

Sure, there are a host of agencies, academies, etc putting out statements that allude to absolute certainty among the scientific community. And even then, here's a description of the "oncontrovertible" claim by the APS.

 

So we've warmed around 1.5°C over the last 100 years, that's within the margin of error described above. And as far as I am aware, so far none of our climate models have accurately predicted temperature trends out to even 10 or 20 years. By the time this becomes an issue (iirc, it was within 100-200 years) we'll likely not even be outputting nearly as much if any CO2. That will give time for the CO2 we have put into the atmosphere to cycle out (which all of what we have put in at present would be pretty much gone within the next 200 years, and that would be 30% of what we have now lasting possibly that long).

So to me, even if climate change is primarily human driven, the timelines just don't imply the alarmism we see. We're seeing the safest nuclear energy with many different kinds of reactors. Fusion power, and slow advances in solar (though I don't see that as being any form of primary source of power). And it's even more interesting how we target fossil fuels so heavily yet ignore natural gas despite it using similarly if not even worse greenhouse gases than coal plants. Look at the Porter Ranch gas leak which had a larger carbon footprint than Deepwater Horizon, and released 97,000 tons of methane (which is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2).

My opinion? It's all moot, because by the time any of this actually matters we'll be using other technologies because they are better, cleaner and safer. And by cleaner/safer I don't mean from a climate perspective, but a local health perspective (asthma, etc).

Smoking has never been observed to cause cancer. At least not directly. We know that certain particles in smoke cause cancer, but no one has directly observed a cell change in a human lung with a microscope as smoke touches it in real time.. Its all correlation. Just like global warming. Human made Co2 has never been observed to cause global warming. At least not directly, We know that CO2 causes global warming, but no one has directly observed and followed human emitted CO2 into the atmosphere and watched the temperature increase in real time. Its all correlation.

[Emn1ty]

48 minutes ago, sidroc said:

Smoking has never been observed to cause cancer. At least not directly. We know that certain particles in smoke cause cancer, but no one has directly observed a cell change in a human lung with a microscope as smoke touches it in real time.. Its all correlation. Just like global warming. Human made Co2 has never been observed to cause global warming. At least not directly, We know that CO2 causes global warming, but no one has directly observed and followed human emitted CO2 into the atmosphere and watched the temperature increase in real time. Its all correlation.

These two things aren't even remotely the same. With cigarettes you can have a control, someone (or a group of people) who has not been exposed to cigarettes and someone (or a group of people) who have. You can then monitor them and observe their changes in a way where almost all variables are known or controlled. You cannot do that with Earth's climate, there is no "control" as there are variables we cannot entirely account for.

So while yes, you're correct that perhaps no one has observed the exact moment of mutation from cigarettes, demonstrating that cigarettes cause cancer isn't even close to the same problem as predicting how much a gas affects our atmosphere which is fluid dynamics. We can't properly model climate change out to a few years specifically because fluid dynamics is hard. So please don't try and make such an inept comparison again. 

[Ravensky]

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 4:31 PM, DocM said:

/sigh....

 

We talked about this in Science a while back.

 

In a reorganization move they want to move Earth and climate science  work to NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, you know - The Weather Guys™, and let NASA concentrate on space. A logical change.

 

Further, they are brining back the National Space Council, which is a committee chaired by the Vice President with members from groups NASA deals with in and out of govt., to give it better guidance.

 

Versions of NSC have existed since Project Mercury, and it being dissolved is partly responsible for NASA's drift. That and having too many non-space irons in the fire - like climate.

bringing back the National Space Council is good news I'm happy to hear it, this never should have gone away in the first place...

[TPreston]

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Except that you can verifiably show that cigarettes cause cancer. As in direct cause and result. This is why when discussing climate change it's not a matter of "fact" but agreement, consensus, and likelihoods. Even NASA uses this phrasing:

 

Sure, there are a host of agencies, academies, etc putting out statements that allude to absolute certainty among the scientific community. And even then, here's a description of the "oncontrovertible" claim by the APS.

 

Learn what science is, absolute certainty only exsists within your theology cases. All scientific papers use this wording.

 

Outside that the warming effect of c02 has been known for over 150 years http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf; And atmospheric co2 was more or less steady for the last 2000 years

 

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2013.html

 

It increases and we see rapid warming, Duh

 

Also even if we stop now, it will take hundreds of years for the atmosphere to return to normal

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00001811&newMem=N&recs=20

Edited December 2, 2016 by TPreston

[DocM]

---------->>>>

 

 

[PGHammer]

DocM - what climate change, by and large, has been used to do (especially politically) is to basically force the original founders of the Industrial Revolution (Europe and the United States) out of the "industrial" businesses (mostly by force of guilt), if only to be replaced by the developing world (who plain and simply do NOT have either the technology to practice pollution-abatement forced upon the first world or are unwilling to import it from the the already-industrialized Europe and the United States due to cost - the PRC and even Brazil aren't spending the money; didn't the Olympics - in both nations - illustrate the consequences of NOT doing so?)  Effective pollution abatement - on a global scale - does NOT work if you merely replace one group of polluters with an even larger group - how are you going to solve the pollution coming out of even the BRIC, let alone the nations that want to move up to catch them?  No treaty (or even agreement - such as COP21) has been successful in tackling that problem except via Bunco methodologies ("rob Peter to pay Paul" AKA carbon taxes), and the business communities of Europe and the US are refusing to keep being buffaloed into playing along any more.  If you are serious about averting climate change, the measures taken must be GLOBAL in nature - no exceptions!  However, would the BRIC willingly shackle itself?  (Of course not - therefore why should even Europe - let alone the US - stick their head into the noose?)

[TPreston]

44 minutes ago, DocM said:

---------->>>>

 

 

On ‎01‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 3:55 AM, DocM said:

 There's a short list on Wiki, including Dr. Freeman Dyson, people at Los Alamos, MIT, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr. Harrison Schmitt and overseas climate researchers.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

9 hours ago, TPreston said:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

SSDN

 

Fail

Edited December 2, 2016 by TPreston

[Memphis]

9 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

These two things aren't even remotely the same. With cigarettes you can have a control, someone (or a group of people) who has not been exposed to cigarettes and someone (or a group of people) who have. You can then monitor them and observe their changes in a way where almost all variables are known or controlled. You cannot do that with Earth's climate, there is no "control" as there are variables we cannot entirely account for.

So while yes, you're correct that perhaps no one has observed the exact moment of mutation from cigarettes, demonstrating that cigarettes cause cancer isn't even close to the same problem as predicting how much a gas affects our atmosphere which is fluid dynamics. We can't properly model climate change out to a few years specifically because fluid dynamics is hard. So please don't try and make such an inept comparison again. 

Like you said, I am correct because I clearly am. Both have not been directly observed in the same way. You are grasping at straws to support your belief just like a cdeationist being shown a book on Evolution, or a Liberal being shown a book about the genetics of gender. I am sorry you have to cling to your interpretations instead of science. In the end, this way of thinking will only hurt you and your eventual illiterate children. I hope someday you will realize that science is not like politics and does not have teams to root for. Competition in politics is about being the first to find the truth not shouting down the the other side.

[Emn1ty]

Just now, sidroc said:

Like you said, I am correct because I clearly am. Both have nit been directly observed in the same way. You are grasping at straws to support your belief just like a cdeationist being shown a book on darwin, or a liberal beung shown a book about the genetics if gender. I am sorry you have to cling to your interpretations instead of science. In the end, this way of thinking will only hurt you and your eventual illiterate children.

 

5 hours ago, TPreston said:

Learn what science is, absolute certainty only exsists within your theology cases.

So if you can't actually argue your points, make it a religious discussion so you can just dismiss my arguments. Seems like an effective strategy. The only religion here is the unquestioned devotion to climate change and no observation of the context of the scale of time necessary to cause actual damage. Do I think we should limit our emissions? Yes. Do I think it's because of climate change? No. I think there are more immediate and realistic issues with regards to carbon emissions and pollution, specifically air quality and health. But as far as I can tell, based on the historical accuracy of our predictions on climate (which have all been dead wrong, and none of you guys have addressed that) is we are still out of our league in regards to understanding how much CO2 actually affects the Earth's climate. Yes, we know it causes warming. I get that, but how much warming does it cause in a system as complex as our atmosphere? We don't know that, because we haven't been able to accurately model it.

[TPreston]

10 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

 

So if you can't actually argue your points, make it a religious discussion so you can just dismiss my arguments. Seems like an effective strategy.

Ive already slaughtered your points, I'm just highlighting that you don't know what science is. As soon as you start discussing certainty or absolutes leave the realm of science.

 

Quote

The only religion here is the unquestioned devotion to climate change and no observation of the context of the scale of time necessary to cause actual damage.

Yes you might even call them Darwinists I mean alarmists.

 

Quote

based on the historical accuracy of our projections on climate (which have all been dead wrong, and none of you guys have addressed that)

Such as ? and please make sure these are predictions on climate (Not the general publics definition of the word)

 

Quote

is we are still out of our league in regards to understanding how much CO2 actually affects the Earth's climate. Yes, we know it causes warming. I get that, but how much warming does it cause in a system as complex as our atmosphere? We don't know that, because we haven't been able to accurately model it.

We are right on track

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

 

Its a very easy claim to disprove, All you need to do is provide a decrease in earths global average temperature (Not just a part of it) over a period of 30 years in comparison to the previous 30 years.

[Emn1ty]

4 hours ago, TPreston said:

Ive already slaughtered your points, I'm just highlighting that you don't know what science is. As soon as you start discussing certainty or absolutes leave the realm of science.

Then address that to someone else who claimed there was no scientists arguing against it, and heavily implied certainty where there isn't. I've not claimed certainty but in fact argued against it. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

 

4 hours ago, TPreston said:

Such as ? and please make sure these are predictions on climate (Not the general publics definition of the word)

Projections are predictions to the general public, and how they are described and sold on the issue of climate change. How do climate scientists get their money to continue research? Government and private investment. And by extensions, these people highlight the necessity of the research to justify their investment in it, or to justify taxation based on it. When you had people like Al Gore as recently as 2008 claiming the ice caps would be completely gone in 5 years you can tell this has gone beyond science and fact. It's gone into alarmism, and it's accepted alarmism by the scientific community. I don't see climate scientists speaking out against such exaggerations because it falls in line with their overall goal. But that's not science either, that's just dishonest. So while they sit silent and take the money they got from fear mongering, everyone else gets to suffer the burden of it. Seems fair, right? It's okay if people lie if it suits your needs, right?

 

4 hours ago, TPreston said:

We are right on track

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

 

Its a very easy claim to disprove, All you need to do is provide a decrease in earths global average temperature (Not just a part of it) over a period of 30 years in comparison to the previous 30 years.

Right on track according to which model? With a variance of nearly 3C between them, averaging them doesn't really imply much confidence either. I will reiterate, again, since people seem to think I am arguing against the fact that climate change is occuring.

 

Are we getting hotter? Yes.

Are our emissions contributing? Yes.

Are we going to see irreversible damage in the next 20, 30 or even 100 years? Mabye

Are we consistently wrong about how much change we're going to see? Yes

Will humanity and nature adapt? Most likely

 

We say things like "never before seen in history" as some kind of way to throw up alarm bells, to make people ready to act and prevent our terrible fate. Yet, if something truly "never before seen" how can you so unquestionably devote yourself to something we're still actively refining our understanding of? Sure, it may be for a good reason but that doesn't justify ignoring reality. The truth is we're still figuring things out, and while we're pretty sure we're causing warming we're still trying to figure out exactly how much we're changing things. Especially since hard measurements of climate only stem back roughly 120 years (a tiny blip in the climate history of the planet). We're fretting over a little window into an entire system. I'll wait and see what the real answers are, not run around with my head cut off like a chicken because other people tell me to do so and cite a bunch of scientists who stand by and let that happen even when it's just flat out wrong.

[TPreston]

35 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Then address that to someone else who claimed there was no scientists arguing against it, and heavily implied certainty where there isn't. I've not claimed certainty but in fact argued against it. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Sure there is about as much opposition as there is with evolution and that opposition uses the exact same tactics.

 

Quote

How do climate scientists get their money to continue research? Government and private investment. And by extensions, these people highlight the necessity of the research to justify their investment in it

And this objection can be recycled for any science careful though you are letting your bias show with the free market fundamentalism.#

 

Quote

 When you had people like Al Gore

Al gore is not a climate scientist .

 

Quote

you can tell this has gone beyond science and fact. It's gone into alarmism

And the same can be said for every time the media screw up science reporting, They do it all the time.

 

Quote

and it's accepted alarmism by the scientific community. I don't see climate scientists speaking out against such exaggerations because it falls in line with their overall goal.  But that's not science either, that's just dishonest. So while they sit silent and take the money they got from fear mongering, everyone else gets to suffer the burden of it. Seems fair, right? It's okay if people lie if it suits your needs, right?
 

Its simply not their job to fix the mistakes of the media.

 

Quote

Right on track according to which model? With a variance of nearly 3C between them

Based on human actions

 

Quote

We say things like "never before seen in history" as some kind of way to throw up alarm bells, to make people ready to act and prevent our terrible fate. Yet, if something truly "never before seen" how can you so unquestionably devote yourself to something we're still actively refining our understanding of? Sure, it may be for a good reason but that doesn't justify ignoring reality. The truth is we're still figuring things out, and while we're pretty sure we're causing warming we're still trying to figure out exactly how much we're changing things. Especially since hard measurements of climate only stem back roughly 120 years (a tiny blip in the climate history of the planet). We're fretting over a little window into an entire system. I'll wait and see what the real answers are, not run around with my head cut off like a chicken because other people tell me to do so and cite a bunch of scientists who stand by and let that happen even when it's just flat out wrong.
 

id suggest reading some papers in respected journals instead.

[PGHammer]

2 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Then address that to someone else who claimed there was no scientists arguing against it, and heavily implied certainty where there isn't. I've not claimed certainty but in fact argued against it. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

 

Projections are predictions to the general public, and how they are described and sold on the issue of climate change. How do climate scientists get their money to continue research? Government and private investment. And by extensions, these people highlight the necessity of the research to justify their investment in it, or to justify taxation based on it. When you had people like Al Gore as recently as 2008 claiming the ice caps would be completely gone in 5 years you can tell this has gone beyond science and fact. It's gone into alarmism, and it's accepted alarmism by the scientific community. I don't see climate scientists speaking out against such exaggerations because it falls in line with their overall goal. But that's not science either, that's just dishonest. So while they sit silent and take the money they got from fear mongering, everyone else gets to suffer the burden of it. Seems fair, right? It's okay if people lie if it suits your needs, right?

 

Right on track according to which model? With a variance of nearly 3C between them, averaging them doesn't really imply much confidence either. I will reiterate, again, since people seem to think I am arguing against the fact that climate change is occuring.

 

Are we getting hotter? Yes.

Are our emissions contributing? Yes.

Are we going to see irreversible damage in the next 20, 30 or even 100 years? Mabye

Are we consistently wrong about how much change we're going to see? Yes

Will humanity and nature adapt? Most likely

 

We say things like "never before seen in history" as some kind of way to throw up alarm bells, to make people ready to act and prevent our terrible fate. Yet, if something truly "never before seen" how can you so unquestionably devote yourself to something we're still actively refining our understanding of? Sure, it may be for a good reason but that doesn't justify ignoring reality. The truth is we're still figuring things out, and while we're pretty sure we're causing warming we're still trying to figure out exactly how much we're changing things. Especially since hard measurements of climate only stem back roughly 120 years (a tiny blip in the climate history of the planet). We're fretting over a little window into an entire system. I'll wait and see what the real answers are, not run around with my head cut off like a chicken because other people tell me to do so and cite a bunch of scientists who stand by and let that happen even when it's just flat out wrong.

In other words, there STILL isn't enough data - and even those that agree with the climate-change screeds admit that.  However, is the missing data even collectable?  That missing data goes - at the very least - back to the Industrial Revolution's beginning - the eighteenth century - how will we get clean data from that far back?  (We can't even get clean military data from the War of 1812 - which is historical fact - or even the Civil War or World War I - which are closer chronologically than the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.)  That is why models are used; however, even the BEST models - like it or not - are based on assumptions - basically, taking things "on faith".  Religions can't even agree on that - yet we, as nations are supposed to universally accept things on faith in terms of science - which is supposed to be based on hard data - not belief or faith!  That is why climate-change is STILL closer to religion than hard science - there is still not enough data, and it will take centuries - if not at least a millenium - before there is.  Assumptions are the mother of ALL muckups - and especially in terms of hard science.

[Emn1ty]

40 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Sure there is about as much opposition as there is with evolution and that opposition uses the exact same tactics.

And what exactly are those tactics?

 

41 minutes ago, TPreston said:

And this objection can be recycled for any science careful though you are letting your bias show with the free market fundamentalism.#

What does free market fundamentalism have to do with this?

 

42 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Al gore is not a climate scientist . And the same can be said for every time the media screw up science reporting, They do it all the time. Its simply not their job to fix the mistakes of the media.

It is definitely their job to correct misinformation. If someone is openly using your work to promote a lie then you should speak out against it. Not just accept it and allow people to exploit others with your work.

 

43 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Based on human actions

And unknown factors.

 

45 minutes ago, TPreston said:

id suggest reading some papers in respected journals instead.

As if I haven't read them. I used to be a huge supporter of the Climate Change agenda, and then I saw how it's been abused and turned into something it's not (and the scientific community hasn't exactly refuted it likely because it's the source of their funding). It's a cash cow for all involved, and the fact it's become so political shows that.