How many scientists really dispute global warming?
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Actually the predictions have been pretty good. Going right back to 1988, James Hansen's temperature models clearly have skill. Far better than the null hypothesis, which would predict no further warming. Modeling has moved on a lot since then as have computational facilities.
Which is discussed here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/#more-1810
There are quite a number of other notably successful predictions from climate models:
* models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
* models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
* models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
* models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
* and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.
http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven/
And before the whinging starts about Hansens model not being exactly correct take note that no model is ever going to be exactly correct, but they have been good enough to make some pretty decent predictions - most importantly the climate will continue to warm as has been born out by the temperature record.
I believe there are smart people that actually create and invent things, some of whom are scientists and PHD's, and then there are those with pedigree's that sit around and talk about what might happen, what could happen, what may happen, etc. Climate cultists are the later, PHD or not.
You mean this data?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bpQQGFZHSno&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bpQQGFZHSno&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Quote from Lucrum:
Ooooh, that's gonna leave a mark.
Of course he'll never admit it.
Truthfully, not only has it "left a mark" but it made me want to give up entirely.
There is an obvious distinction, of course, that holding a belief about climatic processes doesn't indicate a unilateral belief system of how to address the problem, or explain how necessity interacts with behavior. (You've somehow conflated political belief with climate.) However, denigrating all science and PhD's shows contempt for the very methodology that you exploit in just about every aspect in your daily life.
I suspect that this distinction is lost on you folks. Heck, I don't suspect it, I guarantee it.
You folks denigrate scientists while typing on your computer, on the Internet, talking into your cell phone, and trading on an automated client on automated markets, then turn and write how those stupid scientists don't know what they're talking about as if an appeal to the common man, appeal to the people, is convincing to others.
It isn't.
We have conflated political belief with climate? Is this some kind of a sick joke? It is folks like you who support Cap and Tax legislation. It is folks like you who wanted the US to join the Kyoto Protocol. It is folks like you who gathered in Copenhagen in an attempt to control the energy use of the world's population. Look at the global controls that the global warming folks are trying to implement and then tell me how it is me who is exploiting the science. With you it is not only political belief, it is political action.
Talk about denigrating scientists. How about this?
I guess scientists are just fine by you as long as they agree with you and they aren't old.
Thank you for proving my point with this quote above and the excellent illustration of how you conflate political belief about solutions with climate. I can easily disprove your statement above. James Hansen, as just one example, has expounded at length on the realities of global warming and opposes cap and trade legislation.
So it's clear that recognizing reality does not imply a uniformity of thought on how to address a problem.
And no, recognizing reality, that a nearly 100 year old scientist has dementia and was exploited by a global warming denier to slap his name on an outright silly petition of dentists is not, in any manner, "denigrating science," nor is criticizing a scientist who uses out of date information from 50 years ago.
But then, I wasn't criticizing all scientists (and thus science) as happened above.
The reason that many people now have the need to denigrate science is due to an increasing stream of anti-intellectualism in society. The "elites" are the ivory towered intellectuals who don't really understand what's happening, unlike the common man. This is a propaganda technique that's been known about since WWII. Sadly, leading people around by the nose with this technique still works.
I'm not denigrating scientists. My issue is with the self appointed, self anointed, pseudo intellectuals who are long on theory and short on practical application. Let me clue ya' junior, in today's world, a PHD ain't all that. In far too many cases it simply means that someone had the time and money to go get one, and has little to do with any actual brain power. Like in anything else, there are scientists, and then there are scientists. Show me the ones that aren't attending politcal parties, feeding at the government trough, preaching to the easily impressed and maybe you'll earn my attention. Until then, it's just more wild eyed speculation from the radical left.
So I take it you are going to continue to pollute and destroy the world so that you can have modern convience. Selfish.
Not only are you willing to put money on the line about your bogus forecasts, you are also un-willing to change your behavior to prevent what you say will destroy the Earth. Nice.
I also see the worlds biggest problem is we are not following the elites enough. They are the ones with the answers. Well here we are. We have an intellectual, law professor that we were told would change the world and everything would be better. The fact is the guy has turned out to be a total and complete failure and you voted for him.
BTW, when did a politician with a degree in journalism become a scientist?