Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Uncle Ted]

You should be flattered. That is an awesome painting.

And while googling it, I found this masterpiece:

Alligators with frickin laser beams... That is awesome.

[byu71]

Do you think that debate should just now begin or are you saying you were there when that debate did in fact begin?

Old people jokes just never get old do they. I was up in England and so was never part of the debate going on in Spain.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Alligators with frickin laser beams... That is awesome.

Indeed it is. I love the joint in his mouth ("Don't inhale, Bill!"), the sax, Ronald McDonald, and his open fly. Such a pity Topper has no sense of humor. I bet Clinton lol'ed when he saw this.

[Topper]

Indeed it is. I love the joint in his mouth ("Don't inhale, Bill!"), the sax, Ronald McDonald, and his open fly. Such a pity Topper has no sense of humor. I bet Clinton lol'ed when he saw this.

That one doesn't open on my browser for some reason.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That one doesn't open on my browser for some reason.

Try the URL:

http://images.thezooom.com/uploads/2013/03/Bill-Clinton-The-Lady-Killer.jpg

[Uncle Ted]

Indeed it is. I love the joint in his mouth ("Don't inhale, Bill!"), the sax, Ronald McDonald, and his open fly. Such a pity Topper has no sense of humor. I bet Clinton lol'ed when he saw this.

Here is a larger version that helps see the background details better: http://i.imgur.com/qlAw6Lr.jpg

There are a couple of UFOs flying around in the sky. LOL. What a great piece of art.

Edit: I missed the cigar in Bill's packet and lipstick on his collar as well.

[USUC]

That point is debatable. In any event, the explanation for opposing the conclusions upon policy decisions in the environmental realm is set forth plainly.



That is my primary concern.

Baby steps. He quoted an article from Reason. Soon enough he will be praising Milton Friedman.

[fusnik]

The left is equally as anti-science as the right. There's fracking, there's the genetically modified food nonsense (which leads to real life and death results, particularly in the case of golden rice), the wind/solar power boondoggle while ignoring nuclear power. Additionally, any research relating to genetics and race/gender/sexual orientation is more or less off limits.

The few bible thumpers that dispute evolution in addition to the much more wide spread skepticism held by the right towards a branch of science that has become heavily-politicized and used to pursue lefty goals doesn't make the right anymore anti-science to the lefties. The lefties are either downright morons as it relates to science (genetically modified food) or they don't like inconvenient findings (fracking and the lack of practicality of wind/solar power) to their political goals. Steve Jobs is a hero to people across political lines, but he was a hardcore lefty and a genius who had no clue as to the limits of his genius. His faith in science didn't extend to his own cancer treatment. The reliance on hokey witch doctor nonsense doesn't only extend to those in Utah that believe in the healing powers of fragrant oils, it has a big time following within the more crunchy granola factions on the left. Steve Jobs and Dave Rose had the same kind of pancreatic cancer, one is dead and the other is alive.

OMG, what an obtuse asshole.

[Jacob]

NYTimes science section

As many people know, the warming of the earth’s surface has slowed sharply over recent years. That slowdown did not match past computer projections of what the climate was supposed to do under the influence of greenhouse gases, and scientists have been struggling to explain it.

Their inability to do so raises questions about the reliability of the computer models on which long-term climate projections are based. Moreover, that scientific problem has become a political problem.

[Pelado]

Aussie Murray Salby arguing that temperature is the cause, not the effect, of increased CO2:

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_global-warming.html

Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations. Scientists’ understanding of the complex climate dynamics is undeveloped, not least because the ocean’s heat capacity is a thousand times greater than that of the atmosphere and relevant physical observations of the oceans are so sparse. Until this is remedied, the science cannot be settled. In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first—and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2, with changes in soil-moisture conditions explaining most of the rest. Furthermore, these two factors also explain changes in net methane emission, the second-most important “human” greenhouse gas. As for what causes global temperatures to rise, Salby says that one of the most important factors influencing temperature is heat exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Salby is a crackpot. Some creative writing there.

[Pelado]

Salby is a crackpot. Some creative writing there.

Didn't see anything on him on a CS search.

[Jacob]

Aussie Murray Salby arguing that temperature is the cause, not the effect, of increased CO2:

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_...l-warming.html

I have know way of knowing whether any of that is valid. But it is interesting when compared to the NYTimes science article I posted. There, after the stark admission:

That slowdown did not match past computer projections of what the climate was supposed to do under the influence of greenhouse gases, and scientists have been struggling to explain it.

Their inability to do so raises questions about the reliability of the computer models on which long-term climate projections are based.

the writer goes on to explain that the failure of temperature to change as predicted is clearly explained by the oceans and their ability to absorb temperature, while at the same time explaining that there is no good data on the ocean temperatures.

So, both agree that there is not enough data on ocean temperatures, but while the AGW advocate is quick to reach a conclusion despite (or perhaps even relying on?) on the lack of oceanic temperature data, your quote states that:

Until this is remedied, the science cannot be settled.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have know way of knowing whether any of that is valid. But it is interesting when compared to the NYTimes science article I posted. There, after the stark admission:


the writer goes on to explain that the failure of temperature to change as predicted is clearly explained by the oceans and their ability to absorb temperature, while at the same time explaining that there is no good data on the ocean temperatures.

So, both agree that there is not enough data on ocean temperatures, but while the AGW advocate is quick to reach a conclusion despite (or perhaps even relying on?) on the lack of oceanic temperature data, your quote states that:

Scientists have not been struggling to explain the slowdown and it does not invalidate the models. We have covered this several times.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?32585-Global-Warming-quot-Pseudoscientific-Fraud-quot&p=1097800&viewfull=1#post1097800

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?32585-Global-Warming-quot-Pseudoscientific-Fraud-quot&p=1097980

[cowboy]

Scientists have not been struggling to explain the slowdown and it does not invalidate the models. We have covered this several times.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?32585-Global-Warming-quot-Pseudoscientific-Fraud-quot&p=1097800&viewfull=1#post1097800

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...quot&p=1097980

I have a geeky simulation question. Do the simulations account for unknown variables that enable the earth to adapt to increased CO2 levels? A lot of variables, including oceanic absorption, seem possible. In my limited experience, it takes about 10,000 runs per variable for the noise to settle out in a simulation. With this is mind, it seems that an enormous number of variables and interactions would require so many runs as to render it nearly impossible to make estimations with any confidence. I'm obviously missing something, as scientists agree that this is a reliable estimation method, but I've always been under the impression that these types of simulations work best with a handful of variables that have limitless combinations rather than limitless variables that follow strict laws of physics.