Crosswords1 min ago
Is Climate Change A Sham To Get More Money From The Taxpayer?
http://
It has just been announced the forecasting is all wrong and is now set at a lower figure. In fact global temperatures haven't risen at all for the past two decades and is all due to normal cyclic variation. They say we should consider climate change over centuries rather than decades.
Who should we believe? We will all be in our boxes before the new century is upon us.
It has just been announced the forecasting is all wrong and is now set at a lower figure. In fact global temperatures haven't risen at all for the past two decades and is all due to normal cyclic variation. They say we should consider climate change over centuries rather than decades.
Who should we believe? We will all be in our boxes before the new century is upon us.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pdq1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Beso -
When I asked about the evidence for sea level rise I deliberately included the caveat, “... Then show me that man-made CO2 is to blame for this rise...”. You have ignored my caveat. I know the reason why. Would you like to tell the boys and girls why you have decided to ignore this aspect of my post? No? Thought not.
You further say, “... As I have said before you simply ignore what conflicts with your religious view...”. Which is rich coming, as it does, from a AGW fanatic like yourself. Remind me Beso, who was it that said that AGW was as big a danger to life on this planet as the Chicxulub event?
You continue being dishonest when you say, “... You simply try to paint anyone who wants to see responsible action as an extremist...”. Do I? How do you reconcile your statement with the one I made earlier on this thread to Lazygun [02:03 Sat 12th Jan 2013] “... I'm all for a cleaner, greener earth. Fossil fuels are finite and we need to find a sustainable alternative...”? You do like to try and portray me as a thoroughly unpleasant and environmentally unaware/uncaring person but the facts and my statements simply don't bear this out.
And you continue, “.... We have already increased atmospheric carbon by 40 percent. Can we double it? Triple it? Simple question birdie but you can't answer it because you are are an ignorant fossil fuel worshipper...”. Sorry, but you're wrong again my simplistic, gullible friend. I've already said on many occasions that I'm well aware that fossil fuels are a finite resource and that finding sustainable alternative energy sources are essential for the future of mankind.
When I asked about the evidence for sea level rise I deliberately included the caveat, “... Then show me that man-made CO2 is to blame for this rise...”. You have ignored my caveat. I know the reason why. Would you like to tell the boys and girls why you have decided to ignore this aspect of my post? No? Thought not.
You further say, “... As I have said before you simply ignore what conflicts with your religious view...”. Which is rich coming, as it does, from a AGW fanatic like yourself. Remind me Beso, who was it that said that AGW was as big a danger to life on this planet as the Chicxulub event?
You continue being dishonest when you say, “... You simply try to paint anyone who wants to see responsible action as an extremist...”. Do I? How do you reconcile your statement with the one I made earlier on this thread to Lazygun [02:03 Sat 12th Jan 2013] “... I'm all for a cleaner, greener earth. Fossil fuels are finite and we need to find a sustainable alternative...”? You do like to try and portray me as a thoroughly unpleasant and environmentally unaware/uncaring person but the facts and my statements simply don't bear this out.
And you continue, “.... We have already increased atmospheric carbon by 40 percent. Can we double it? Triple it? Simple question birdie but you can't answer it because you are are an ignorant fossil fuel worshipper...”. Sorry, but you're wrong again my simplistic, gullible friend. I've already said on many occasions that I'm well aware that fossil fuels are a finite resource and that finding sustainable alternative energy sources are essential for the future of mankind.
@Slapshot - I bow to your experience wrt analysis of the climate - my own scientific background is firmly biomedical - but I would reject much of what you claim about the shortcomings of the predictions and observations of those that argue that global warming and AGW is a significant issue.
Simply restating that the IPCC is a political body does not automatically invalidate the work of the many many contributors, nor does it necessarily mean it is corrupt or underhand.
And you still have to explain to me how it is that you and a small band of others see a truth that the thousands of scientists, National Academies and Scientific Institutions have missed - that the foundation upon which they are basing their observations, predictions and hypotheses is wrong. How is that? Are you smarter than they? Are they all corrupted by research grants? Are they all too intimidated to oppose the broad scientific consensus?
No, it doesn't stack up. Were you able to demonstrate the glaring flaws in this work, then you might very well be in line for a Nobel Prize :) The fundamental science underpinning AGW seems sound to me, so I will continue to accept the scientific consensus until shown incontrovertible truth to the contrary :)
Simply restating that the IPCC is a political body does not automatically invalidate the work of the many many contributors, nor does it necessarily mean it is corrupt or underhand.
And you still have to explain to me how it is that you and a small band of others see a truth that the thousands of scientists, National Academies and Scientific Institutions have missed - that the foundation upon which they are basing their observations, predictions and hypotheses is wrong. How is that? Are you smarter than they? Are they all corrupted by research grants? Are they all too intimidated to oppose the broad scientific consensus?
No, it doesn't stack up. Were you able to demonstrate the glaring flaws in this work, then you might very well be in line for a Nobel Prize :) The fundamental science underpinning AGW seems sound to me, so I will continue to accept the scientific consensus until shown incontrovertible truth to the contrary :)
@ Lazygun..... morning!!
We each have our own thoughts on the matter, I can respect your views easily because you haven't come bashing the IPCC bible however, the "small band" of scientific heretics grows daily as the evidence continues to stack up that the early and still current AGW theories may not stack up as they should, i've even heard that from a Hadley Centre Scientist.
Afraid of authorites nah, my job is way below what I could be doing if I'd gotten into Climate research, i just wouldn't have been allowed (official Bolshie Scot!!), first and foremost I'm a scientist. My position is a microcosm of the industry and tends to suggest there are a lot of scientists are being kept out of prime jobs because of stance, that's suggests it, I know for a fact it happens.
Don't get me wrong, on the fundamental basis of Climate Change, the planet is still warming, HADgem3 acknowledged that, just that the increase rates are more in line with natural cycles than AGW theory. The numbers are sound but still there are fundamental question that the IPCC and their sponsors, ie governments, don't want to answer.
Here's a goody for you; some Russian scientists were working on a IPCC piece of work using tree rings to study Co2 blooms in relation to known warmer periods (tree growth rings work in a similar manner to ice cores in relation to recording climatic conditions). They were expected to find confirmatory proof that co2 levels increased drastically in the years preceeding an atmospheric warming what they showed was the opposite, that Co2 blooms appeared at the end of warming periods. There are ice core studies that prove this as well.
As their results started to oppose the "expected results" their funding was chopped and the work eventually ceased. This was one of the stories in the released University of East Anglia emails that caused uproar a couple of years ago.
Also a hypothetical for anyone - Why are co2 levels always talked about when they are not the most abundant greenhouse gas, that's water vapour, WV was only included in the models a few years ago.???
Global warming is more about politics than the science, it's an easy bandwagon to jump on!!
We each have our own thoughts on the matter, I can respect your views easily because you haven't come bashing the IPCC bible however, the "small band" of scientific heretics grows daily as the evidence continues to stack up that the early and still current AGW theories may not stack up as they should, i've even heard that from a Hadley Centre Scientist.
Afraid of authorites nah, my job is way below what I could be doing if I'd gotten into Climate research, i just wouldn't have been allowed (official Bolshie Scot!!), first and foremost I'm a scientist. My position is a microcosm of the industry and tends to suggest there are a lot of scientists are being kept out of prime jobs because of stance, that's suggests it, I know for a fact it happens.
Don't get me wrong, on the fundamental basis of Climate Change, the planet is still warming, HADgem3 acknowledged that, just that the increase rates are more in line with natural cycles than AGW theory. The numbers are sound but still there are fundamental question that the IPCC and their sponsors, ie governments, don't want to answer.
Here's a goody for you; some Russian scientists were working on a IPCC piece of work using tree rings to study Co2 blooms in relation to known warmer periods (tree growth rings work in a similar manner to ice cores in relation to recording climatic conditions). They were expected to find confirmatory proof that co2 levels increased drastically in the years preceeding an atmospheric warming what they showed was the opposite, that Co2 blooms appeared at the end of warming periods. There are ice core studies that prove this as well.
As their results started to oppose the "expected results" their funding was chopped and the work eventually ceased. This was one of the stories in the released University of East Anglia emails that caused uproar a couple of years ago.
Also a hypothetical for anyone - Why are co2 levels always talked about when they are not the most abundant greenhouse gas, that's water vapour, WV was only included in the models a few years ago.???
Global warming is more about politics than the science, it's an easy bandwagon to jump on!!
bidie //When I asked about the evidence for sea level rise I deliberately included the caveat, “... Then show me that man-made CO2 is to blame for this rise...”. You have ignored my caveat. I know the reason why. Would you like to tell the boys and girls why you have decided to ignore this aspect of my post? No? Thought not. //
You have previously claimed that the sea level has not risen. Now you are backing away from that lie. You ignore everything that I post and continue to pretend that what you say makes sense.
// You further say, “... As I have said before you simply ignore what conflicts with your religious view...”. Which is rich coming, as it does, from a AGW fanatic like yourself. //
My views are based on science. You are simply posting unsubstantiated denial.
//Remind me Beso, who was it that said that AGW was as big a danger to life on this planet as the Chicxulub event? //
You continue to misrepresent what I said. I said AGW is the biggest discrution SINCE the Chixilub evnet. As usual you rely on denying what has not been said because you cannot disprove what is actually said.
//You continue being dishonest when you say, “... You simply try to paint anyone who wants to see responsible action as an extremist...”. Do I? How do you reconcile your statement with the one I made earlier on this thread to Lazygun [02:03 Sat 12th Jan 2013] “... I'm all for a cleaner, greener earth. Fossil fuels are finite and we need to find a sustainable alternative...”? You do like to try and portray me as a thoroughly unpleasant and environmentally unaware/uncaring person but the facts and my statements simply don't bear this out. //
You have repeatedly claimed that moving away from fossil fuels would destroy our economies.
// And you continue, “.... We have already increased atmospheric carbon by 40 percent. Can we double it? Triple it? Simple question birdie but you can't answer it because you are are an ignorant fossil fuel worshipper...”. Sorry, but you're wrong again my simplistic, gullible friend. I've already said on many occasions that I'm well aware that fossil fuels are a finite resource and that finding sustainable alternative energy sources are essential for the future of mankind.//
So you are clearly happy to burn all we can extract. However you have failed to answer the question about what is the safe level of CO2.
Your religious attitudes and ignorant faith are blatantly obvious.
You have previously claimed that the sea level has not risen. Now you are backing away from that lie. You ignore everything that I post and continue to pretend that what you say makes sense.
// You further say, “... As I have said before you simply ignore what conflicts with your religious view...”. Which is rich coming, as it does, from a AGW fanatic like yourself. //
My views are based on science. You are simply posting unsubstantiated denial.
//Remind me Beso, who was it that said that AGW was as big a danger to life on this planet as the Chicxulub event? //
You continue to misrepresent what I said. I said AGW is the biggest discrution SINCE the Chixilub evnet. As usual you rely on denying what has not been said because you cannot disprove what is actually said.
//You continue being dishonest when you say, “... You simply try to paint anyone who wants to see responsible action as an extremist...”. Do I? How do you reconcile your statement with the one I made earlier on this thread to Lazygun [02:03 Sat 12th Jan 2013] “... I'm all for a cleaner, greener earth. Fossil fuels are finite and we need to find a sustainable alternative...”? You do like to try and portray me as a thoroughly unpleasant and environmentally unaware/uncaring person but the facts and my statements simply don't bear this out. //
You have repeatedly claimed that moving away from fossil fuels would destroy our economies.
// And you continue, “.... We have already increased atmospheric carbon by 40 percent. Can we double it? Triple it? Simple question birdie but you can't answer it because you are are an ignorant fossil fuel worshipper...”. Sorry, but you're wrong again my simplistic, gullible friend. I've already said on many occasions that I'm well aware that fossil fuels are a finite resource and that finding sustainable alternative energy sources are essential for the future of mankind.//
So you are clearly happy to burn all we can extract. However you have failed to answer the question about what is the safe level of CO2.
Your religious attitudes and ignorant faith are blatantly obvious.
Slapshot //Don't get me wrong, on the fundamental basis of Climate Change, the planet is still warming, HADgem3 acknowledged that, just that the increase rates are more in line with natural cycles than AGW theory. //
Rubbish. If the natural cycles were driving the change then we would be continuing the downward temperature trend that prevailed until about 1900. The Milankovitch Cycle should have been pushing us into the next glaciation which is why scientists were predicting another ice age util the effect of CO2 was realised.
Go ahead and explain the natural cycle that would explain the kind of temperature rise were are measuring. You can't because it is a fallacy dreamed up by climate change deniers who pretend a lie repeated sufficiently will eventually become the truth.
Rubbish. If the natural cycles were driving the change then we would be continuing the downward temperature trend that prevailed until about 1900. The Milankovitch Cycle should have been pushing us into the next glaciation which is why scientists were predicting another ice age util the effect of CO2 was realised.
Go ahead and explain the natural cycle that would explain the kind of temperature rise were are measuring. You can't because it is a fallacy dreamed up by climate change deniers who pretend a lie repeated sufficiently will eventually become the truth.
Slapshot //Also a hypothetical for anyone - Why are co2 levels always talked about when they are not the most abundant greenhouse gas, that's water vapour, WV was only included in the models a few years ago.??? //
Because water vapour finds its own equilibrium. It tends to fall out of the sky as rain.
CO2 also has negative feedback. Vast amounts are absorbed by the ocean when atmospheric levels are increased. The resultant acidification of the oceans has been measured. But the ocean cannot keep up with the ever increasing combustion.
Indeed most of the effects of the CO2 already released are yet to be felt. Yet this year we will emit more than ever before. Half of the CO2 emitted since industrialisation has been since about 1980.
Because water vapour finds its own equilibrium. It tends to fall out of the sky as rain.
CO2 also has negative feedback. Vast amounts are absorbed by the ocean when atmospheric levels are increased. The resultant acidification of the oceans has been measured. But the ocean cannot keep up with the ever increasing combustion.
Indeed most of the effects of the CO2 already released are yet to be felt. Yet this year we will emit more than ever before. Half of the CO2 emitted since industrialisation has been since about 1980.
Woo Hoo....I was feeling a bit left out Beso, be fair have a go at me as well as everyone else.
"Milankovitch Cycles SHOULD have been pushing us...." your words, not mine, SHOULD, however there are more processes governing the basis of the environment than just Milankovitch. If all you have is Milankovitch to throw back I'll wait until you have something more interesting ;0)
Milankovitch explains solar forcing in terms of Eccentricity, Obliquity, Axial and Apsidal Precession and Inclination, from my reading of it... ( a while back granted) it does not address solar activity and the thermal variability earth experiences. It was not in early models because it only addressed assumed minimum functions.
Water Vapour - WV will find Equilibrium that wasn't actually my tack. More that WV as the abundant and most important gas is never talked about because it can't be hyped like Co2.
I don't mind debating the topic despite iot being a bit busman's holiday-like, what I do object to though is the holier than thou bible bashing fundamentalist view you appear to come in with. Until the effects of AGW are recognised by observation, is a hypothesis like many many other, you should accept that. Out of interest do you have a cilmatological/meteorological/scientific background??
"Milankovitch Cycles SHOULD have been pushing us...." your words, not mine, SHOULD, however there are more processes governing the basis of the environment than just Milankovitch. If all you have is Milankovitch to throw back I'll wait until you have something more interesting ;0)
Milankovitch explains solar forcing in terms of Eccentricity, Obliquity, Axial and Apsidal Precession and Inclination, from my reading of it... ( a while back granted) it does not address solar activity and the thermal variability earth experiences. It was not in early models because it only addressed assumed minimum functions.
Water Vapour - WV will find Equilibrium that wasn't actually my tack. More that WV as the abundant and most important gas is never talked about because it can't be hyped like Co2.
I don't mind debating the topic despite iot being a bit busman's holiday-like, what I do object to though is the holier than thou bible bashing fundamentalist view you appear to come in with. Until the effects of AGW are recognised by observation, is a hypothesis like many many other, you should accept that. Out of interest do you have a cilmatological/meteorological/scientific background??
Beso -
Regarding your above post, [12:16 Tue 15th Jan 2013] I'm not even going to bother with you again until you contribute anything more worth commenting on. You have attempted time and time again to misrepresent what I have said on matters of sea level rise, the economics of AGW and just about everything else related to fossil fuels and the environment. As I have said before, you like to falsely portray me as some kind of grotesque character because I don't subscribe to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is causing run-away, dangerous climate change.
You're the kind of hate-filled doom-monger that bedevils debate on this topic. The ad-hominem attacks, the denial of observed data, the lauding of unverifiable computer models, the spittle-flecked hatred of anyone who doesn't comply with your world-view, the appeals to authority, the pleading for people at accept the supposed scientific consensus*, and the demonstrably blatant lies about what's been said... the list goes on and on. I see no reason to continue in this vain if that's all you have.
It always makes me laugh when you claim that I have a 'religious' belief about AGW. It was I who first called you a fanatic; implying that your position on this matter is akin to a religious fundamentalist. You've now keenly adopted my idea like the sheep that you are and you're now falsely applying it to me. Remind me again Beso; which one of us has the the 'belief' in dangerous AGW?
* “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” - Galileo Galilei
Regarding your above post, [12:16 Tue 15th Jan 2013] I'm not even going to bother with you again until you contribute anything more worth commenting on. You have attempted time and time again to misrepresent what I have said on matters of sea level rise, the economics of AGW and just about everything else related to fossil fuels and the environment. As I have said before, you like to falsely portray me as some kind of grotesque character because I don't subscribe to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is causing run-away, dangerous climate change.
You're the kind of hate-filled doom-monger that bedevils debate on this topic. The ad-hominem attacks, the denial of observed data, the lauding of unverifiable computer models, the spittle-flecked hatred of anyone who doesn't comply with your world-view, the appeals to authority, the pleading for people at accept the supposed scientific consensus*, and the demonstrably blatant lies about what's been said... the list goes on and on. I see no reason to continue in this vain if that's all you have.
It always makes me laugh when you claim that I have a 'religious' belief about AGW. It was I who first called you a fanatic; implying that your position on this matter is akin to a religious fundamentalist. You've now keenly adopted my idea like the sheep that you are and you're now falsely applying it to me. Remind me again Beso; which one of us has the the 'belief' in dangerous AGW?
* “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” - Galileo Galilei
Once again birdie completely avoids acknowledging the contradictions in his own highly variable position.
He did say that the sea level has not risen one millimetre (in the Seychelles) in a previous thread on this topic. When confronted to revel where he got that information from he decline to answer.
I pointed out that that the story of seal level not rising in the Seychelles was a myth doing the rounds of denialist circles and linked to its source. He then tried to turn the question back on me saying that it was not possible to provide any source since nobody would write such a paper leaving the only possibility that he either lied in denying the source was the one I posted or that he had simply made it up himself.
I provided evidence contrary to his assertions and he provide nothing but empty abuse. Just like he has now.
He did say that the sea level has not risen one millimetre (in the Seychelles) in a previous thread on this topic. When confronted to revel where he got that information from he decline to answer.
I pointed out that that the story of seal level not rising in the Seychelles was a myth doing the rounds of denialist circles and linked to its source. He then tried to turn the question back on me saying that it was not possible to provide any source since nobody would write such a paper leaving the only possibility that he either lied in denying the source was the one I posted or that he had simply made it up himself.
I provided evidence contrary to his assertions and he provide nothing but empty abuse. Just like he has now.
Oddly enough, overall, the AGW debate appears more like a wrangling for political office than an official science question.
From what I seen, I'm unable to come to a conclusion on whether our contribution to 'global warming' will culminate in a global catastrophe or a blessing in disguise in the face of an eminent ice age. Perhaps we should instead prepare to face either possibility rather than trust any governmental agency to act in our own best interest. In the mean time I'm all for encouraging moderation . . . on all fronts. If history has taught us anything, it's that we are just a likely to shoot ourselves in the foot if we go off half cocked.
From what I seen, I'm unable to come to a conclusion on whether our contribution to 'global warming' will culminate in a global catastrophe or a blessing in disguise in the face of an eminent ice age. Perhaps we should instead prepare to face either possibility rather than trust any governmental agency to act in our own best interest. In the mean time I'm all for encouraging moderation . . . on all fronts. If history has taught us anything, it's that we are just a likely to shoot ourselves in the foot if we go off half cocked.
Case in point. For years the US Forest 'Service' maintained a policy of putting out any and all forest fires regardless of conditions and possible benefits. The result was that fuels that made fires hotter, more destructive and harder to manage stacked up posing a much greater danger than existed when nature was allowed to act on her own as she had for millennia. I won't argue that all those fires did or didn't have some effect on climate, let alone the environment they unquestionably impacted.
The moral of this story? If you don't want your house to burn then your best defence is to clean up your own backyard.
The moral of this story? If you don't want your house to burn then your best defence is to clean up your own backyard.
If we were to average the stances taken by scientists across the planet even including those without credible credentials who reject AGW we would find that virtually every country is doing far less than what would need to be done.
The outstanding exceptions include Germany where twenty percent of the grid is now powered from renewables with a goal to reach complete supply from renewables by 2030.
Of course this investment has totally destroyed their economy as pointed out by the doubters on this site who explain that renewable energy is so expensive at it cannot possibly be practical.
Oh wait. Germany has the strongest economy in Europe. Indeed without Germany to bail them out, Europe would be completely stuffed.
The outstanding exceptions include Germany where twenty percent of the grid is now powered from renewables with a goal to reach complete supply from renewables by 2030.
Of course this investment has totally destroyed their economy as pointed out by the doubters on this site who explain that renewable energy is so expensive at it cannot possibly be practical.
Oh wait. Germany has the strongest economy in Europe. Indeed without Germany to bail them out, Europe would be completely stuffed.
Slapshot //Until the effects of AGW are recognised by observation, is a hypothesis like many many other, you should accept that. //
The idea that changing the composition of the atmosphere won't have any effect on climate is also a hypothesis.
If you bothered to look you would see the weight of observation is firmly on the side of the AGW hypothesis. Only the extremist fools argue that nothing has changed.
Others argue that it is a "natural cycle" yet cannot point to any cyclic cause that would match the observed increasing temperature of the planet.
Another small piece. Sydney Australia had its hottest day on record yesterday.
The idea that changing the composition of the atmosphere won't have any effect on climate is also a hypothesis.
If you bothered to look you would see the weight of observation is firmly on the side of the AGW hypothesis. Only the extremist fools argue that nothing has changed.
Others argue that it is a "natural cycle" yet cannot point to any cyclic cause that would match the observed increasing temperature of the planet.
Another small piece. Sydney Australia had its hottest day on record yesterday.
Happy Sunday Beso…..Extremist Fool here
Firstly thanks for the quote, it shows you care…..I almost felt unloved the other day…… ;0)
Secondly, enough with the red herring nonsense of Australia’s hottest day; a that a meteorological issue not a climatological issue. (Combination of weather patterns and late onset of the Monsoon season) Random BS comments like yours is what escalates the hype!!
If you bothered to look out with your own slavish followings of the last IPCC churnings you too might discover that exactly what you want can be derived or inferred from any piece of data, it’s all about your interpretation and analysis. It’s all spin and nonsense.
I’m going to go back to my fundamental point Beso: Any modelling begins with a hypothesis based on information and early basic observations. Now when you build that model around your hypothesis it’s supposed to be designed around the observation not the other way about, it forms the basis of parameterisation. Now when you do this and run the model and 75% of your data falls outwith what you expect what do you do? Any normal scientist would go back and look at the model in stead the AGW theorists ignored the “incorrect data” and carried on regardless. Go read about Beck and his CO2 reading back to the 1800’s, data that was discounted by the early AGW brigade as rubbish but that was verified at a later date. Had these data been accurately used we might have a different discussion. If you’re basis is wrong what you get becomes increasingly wrong.
I’m not anti climate change, I am against the inflated hype that the IPCC and media spout. I’m also a meteorologist and do watch whats going on and read most of the new papers on Climate Change my question would be whether you look at them with science in mind or your standard level of AGW fundamentalism???
Firstly thanks for the quote, it shows you care…..I almost felt unloved the other day…… ;0)
Secondly, enough with the red herring nonsense of Australia’s hottest day; a that a meteorological issue not a climatological issue. (Combination of weather patterns and late onset of the Monsoon season) Random BS comments like yours is what escalates the hype!!
If you bothered to look out with your own slavish followings of the last IPCC churnings you too might discover that exactly what you want can be derived or inferred from any piece of data, it’s all about your interpretation and analysis. It’s all spin and nonsense.
I’m going to go back to my fundamental point Beso: Any modelling begins with a hypothesis based on information and early basic observations. Now when you build that model around your hypothesis it’s supposed to be designed around the observation not the other way about, it forms the basis of parameterisation. Now when you do this and run the model and 75% of your data falls outwith what you expect what do you do? Any normal scientist would go back and look at the model in stead the AGW theorists ignored the “incorrect data” and carried on regardless. Go read about Beck and his CO2 reading back to the 1800’s, data that was discounted by the early AGW brigade as rubbish but that was verified at a later date. Had these data been accurately used we might have a different discussion. If you’re basis is wrong what you get becomes increasingly wrong.
I’m not anti climate change, I am against the inflated hype that the IPCC and media spout. I’m also a meteorologist and do watch whats going on and read most of the new papers on Climate Change my question would be whether you look at them with science in mind or your standard level of AGW fundamentalism???
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Pawn Stars....book Expert.....
Film, Media & TV14 mins ago
Why Would A Young Woman Do This To...
Beauty18 mins ago
Rwanda Threat Not Working? Right Oh!
News19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.