Any article that highlights Naomi Oreskes is a complete joke.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Prediction: Losing election simply due to climate scepticism
- Thread starter OddTrader
- Start date
Any article that highlights Naomi Oreskes is a complete joke.
I feel the same about Judith Curry.Any article that highlights Naomi Oreskes is a complete joke.
I feel the same about Judith Curry.
At least Judith Curry allows all points of view to be presented in her blog the well-respected "Climate Etc."
None of the climate alarmist blogs or organizations allow any skeptics to provide their perspectives.
She may have a point regarding dissent and alarmism. Regarding the latter, that's what we pay professional risk analysts for.At least Judith Curry allows all points of view to be presented in her blog the well-respected "Climate Etc."
None of the climate alarmist blogs or organizations allow any skeptics to provide their perspectives.
But again, if Mr. Mits wanted to know more about her, all he'd have to do is use google...
"Climate change
While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[15] she has argued that..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
She may have a point regarding dissent and alarmism. Regarding the latter, that's what we pay professional risk analysts for.
But again, if Mr. Mits wanted to know more about her, all he'd have to do is use google...
"Climate change
While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[15] she has argued that..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
Why don't you provide the entire context of the quote and provide the text of the rest of the entry which shows very clearly she does not support the climate change "consensus"...
"While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[15] she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[15] Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[15]
In February 2010 Curry published an essay called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.[16] Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as "Climategate".[15]"
or this part...
"In April 2015 Curry gave evidence to the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Hearing on the President’s UN Climate Pledge. She summed up her evidence -
The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution."
Q
Top 10 Civilizations That Mysteriously Disappeared
Posted by Loni Perry on January 18, 2011 in Bizarre, History | 42535 Views | 144 Responses
Throughout our history, most civilizations have either met a slow demise or were wiped out by natural disasters or invasion. But there are a few societies whose disappearance has scholars truly stumped:
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-civilizations-that-mysteriously-disappeared.php
UQ
Top 10 Civilizations That Mysteriously Disappeared
Posted by Loni Perry on January 18, 2011 in Bizarre, History | 42535 Views | 144 Responses
Throughout our history, most civilizations have either met a slow demise or were wiped out by natural disasters or invasion. But there are a few societies whose disappearance has scholars truly stumped:
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-civilizations-that-mysteriously-disappeared.php
UQ
Q
Why we shouldn’t confuse climate and weather
Most factors in intense storms and hurricanes are short-term phenomena but there are longer-term influences
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/20/why-we-shouldnt-confuse-climate-and-weather
Robin McKie
Sunday 20 December 2015 11.05 AEDT
We have always been baffled by the weather and have often used strange arguments to explain its unexpected behaviour. More than 2,000 years ago, one hapless Roman citizen was so worried that unusual gales and storms might be due to the impiety of the nation that he asked the gods for guidance via a carved lead tablet which he left at a local oracle.
Today we have a better idea of the factors that influence our weather, though we still struggle to make sense of the reams of data – wind, pressure, sunshine, temperature, moisture levels, and other factors – that we now know influence the daily regimes of rain and sun that we experience.
Most of these factors are short-term phenomena; others are longer-term influences. The former determine our weather, while the latter affect our climate. And that is the essential difference between weather and climate. It is all a matter of time. Weather is determined by conditions of the atmosphere over a short period and climate is determined by the way the atmosphere behaves over relatively long periods of time. Weather can change quickly; climate alters very slowly.
However, the rules are changing. We have begun to alter the makeup of our atmosphere by pumping out greenhouse gases from our factories, cars and power stations and this, in turn, is changing our climate, causing air and sea temperatures to rise inexorably. This is global warming, a phenomenon now accepted as reality by the vast majority of the world’s meteorologists and climate experts.
Indeed, it was their warnings that led to the recent Paris accord on climate change which is intended to channel a route for nations to agree cuts in fossil fuel use and so reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists know changes lie ahead but find that predicting exactly how our weather will change as long-term climate alters it is complex and vexing. Yes, it is very likely that there will be more intense hurricanes and storms in a warming world but determining whether an individual event – however damaging – is the result of climate change or not is almost impossible given the plethora of other short-term factors that could also influence the triggering of such a storm.
Determining how climate change is progressing is also difficult because long-term data sets are required to build up an accurate assessment. These can take three decades to assemble. Hence the reluctance of scientists to give cast-iron assurances about exactly how much our climate is altering. As the years pass, however, the more certain they get.
UQ
Why we shouldn’t confuse climate and weather
Most factors in intense storms and hurricanes are short-term phenomena but there are longer-term influences
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/20/why-we-shouldnt-confuse-climate-and-weather
Robin McKie
Sunday 20 December 2015 11.05 AEDT
We have always been baffled by the weather and have often used strange arguments to explain its unexpected behaviour. More than 2,000 years ago, one hapless Roman citizen was so worried that unusual gales and storms might be due to the impiety of the nation that he asked the gods for guidance via a carved lead tablet which he left at a local oracle.
Today we have a better idea of the factors that influence our weather, though we still struggle to make sense of the reams of data – wind, pressure, sunshine, temperature, moisture levels, and other factors – that we now know influence the daily regimes of rain and sun that we experience.
Most of these factors are short-term phenomena; others are longer-term influences. The former determine our weather, while the latter affect our climate. And that is the essential difference between weather and climate. It is all a matter of time. Weather is determined by conditions of the atmosphere over a short period and climate is determined by the way the atmosphere behaves over relatively long periods of time. Weather can change quickly; climate alters very slowly.
However, the rules are changing. We have begun to alter the makeup of our atmosphere by pumping out greenhouse gases from our factories, cars and power stations and this, in turn, is changing our climate, causing air and sea temperatures to rise inexorably. This is global warming, a phenomenon now accepted as reality by the vast majority of the world’s meteorologists and climate experts.
Indeed, it was their warnings that led to the recent Paris accord on climate change which is intended to channel a route for nations to agree cuts in fossil fuel use and so reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists know changes lie ahead but find that predicting exactly how our weather will change as long-term climate alters it is complex and vexing. Yes, it is very likely that there will be more intense hurricanes and storms in a warming world but determining whether an individual event – however damaging – is the result of climate change or not is almost impossible given the plethora of other short-term factors that could also influence the triggering of such a storm.
Determining how climate change is progressing is also difficult because long-term data sets are required to build up an accurate assessment. These can take three decades to assemble. Hence the reluctance of scientists to give cast-iron assurances about exactly how much our climate is altering. As the years pass, however, the more certain they get.
UQ
Determining how climate change is progressing is also difficult because long-term data sets are required to build up an accurate assessment. These can take three decades to assemble. Hence the reluctance of scientists to give cast-iron assurances about exactly how much our climate is altering. As the years pass, however, the more certain they get.
It takes three decades to "build-up" data sets. Historical temperature measurements from around the globe have been kept since the 1800s.
What you mean is that it takes three decades for climate alarmists to re-adjust the old raw temperature records to support their assertions. Which is exactly what is wrong with "climate science".
Last edited:
It takes three decades to "build-up" data sets. Historical temperature measurements from around the globe have been kept since the 1800s.
What you mean is that it takes three decades for climate alarmists to re-adjust the old raw temperature records to support their assertions. Which is exactly what is wrong with "climate science".
I can only guess most, if not all, scientists/scholars/researchers should have their professional training, skills, ethics, protocol and system to produce their conclusions/suggestions that could be right or wrong years later.
Basically, I think the scientists can only do and say right now is what exactly they currently believe is right for now, according to conventionally scientific research methodologies/protocols.
Of course, there is possibility for re-adjusting old raw records by certain researchers as you guess, but I think the probability should be extremely slim.
Besides, adjusting raw data records, such as outliers, might be a proper and normal step in standard research protocol, if the adjustments are based on strong scientific reasons/causes. I just guess.
We usually very much believe scientists, and their update of scientific knowledge from time to time. Why not this time?
If someone truly believes the raw data has been compromised/changed, however no solid proof could be found Yet about the adjustment, then the argument hence created will be a never ending one, that could spend unlimited time for almost zero result - nearly guaranteed.
Personally I don't understand well the objective of climate scepticism. Is it simply for social justice, proving the alarmists lied for their wrongdoing of adjusting data?
Good luck to the evangelists of climate scepticism! They do have unusually great courage!
Perhaps they deadly need a whistle-blower! Perhaps a potential whistle-blower would show up anytime soon! We never know!