If you don't like the scientific findings, make up new ones
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
Just skip the Breitbart step and go right to the additional information step, with the realization that you shouldn't go to political sites for the additional information.
That's all fine if you want stuff with an inborn political bent, or in the case of Infowars outright insanity. It's not the "the other side" on a science issue though.
There is no proof. You don't need proof to support a religion. You just need to believe!
This post pretty much sums up my point. You allow others to tell you what you should think. I have said repeatedly, I use the articles as a starting point, and then go research the claims being made in the article. You basically are the walking and talking personification of every claim made about liberals and it's shown by your own words. You are a sheep.
There were like 75 websites that all had the same information when I googled it... of course I wouldn't believe something that ridiculous, just like I have a hard time believing that we are the cause of this "climate change" when similar or worse changes have happened before we were around.
Whether you are fer or agin global warming occurring, the hilarious part of this thread is reading the misinterpretation of the " hiatus" by posters trying to make a point that there has been "no global warming for 18 years". The "hiatus", actual or not, has been used to describe a flattening or slow down in continued global warming...not a halt to it.
I'm not even disputing that the earth is warming... I'm disputing that humans are the cause of it, and no one is able to provide anything that proves this is the case...
Knowing that you should go to a science site to learn about science and a political site to learn about politics isn't faith, it's common sense.
Granted it's hard to be precise about what happened long ago but it's my understanding that scientists believe that changes have not occurred this fast in the past, outside of being caused by big events of nature like meteors or volcanoes.
I don't know why the whole thing seems so unlikely to you. There's a plausible mechanism in that as far as we understand how the atmosphere works, more carbon in it ought to heat things up. We've known that for 140 years. We know we've been putting carbon into the atmosphere for a couple hundred years, and more and more of it as time has gone on. I don't understand why some people think it's just not possible even in principle for humans to affect the atmosphere.
I didn't say anything, That was simply a copy and paste from the abstract of the paper you linked.
I'm not really sure how you come to the conclusion that the whole thing is a farce based on this paper.
The word "hiatus" was used and people misinterpret it. Read the abstract and the first few paragraphs of the paper you linked.
In this context "hiatus" doesn't mean "no change", it means a slowing of the warming trend. It is still warming, just not as quickly as it was, i.e. if you were plotting it in linearly the slope would still be positive, but just not as steep as before.
As OP stated, saying there has been an 18 year hiatus or that there has been no warming in 18 years is cherry picking the data so that it starts at an abnormally high El Nino year.
There is always going to be some scatter around the trend line, so to pick two points that are the same, or (roughly the same) some number of years apart and say that it accurately indicates a trend is intellectually dishonest.
I don't understand where you get this line of thinking.
Are you sure renewable energy sources wouldn't be the most cost effective in undeveloped areas anyway?
Do they have the infrastructure in place to distribute power long distances? No. Do they have the infrastructure in place to easily transport fuel for new power plants? No.
They don't have interstates and trains and power grids set up so that all they have to do is plug in a power plant and off they go. They need the ENTIRE infrastructure. Roads, rail, power lines, distribution/tranformer stations ... everything. Do they have enough water sources to provide the cooling for coal power plants? That's something that needs to be considered as well.
Once all of that is in place, sure, coal and natural gas are cheaper. Maybe. Because you also have to factor in other potential environmental issues (like the water contamination in Kanawha county) and those impacts.
You do understand that all of the warmists climate models have been proven wrong, right? We are emerging from a mini ice age, so natural variability can account for our very modest warming. If the models have all been wrong, is it possible that their theories are also wrong?
You can claim that any model ever made for anything is "wrong" if you want to. No model ever made has been perfect. To think that we will have a perfect climate model (given all of the factors, the interactions between those factors and the randomness of some events) in our lifetime is probably not realistic.
You build a model or simulation and then you do your best to validate that model against real data. Eventually you get to a point in which the model is "good enough" knowing that it will never be perfect. Part of the modeling and simulation process is defining upfront exactly what the model is to be used for and validating the model for use for that purpose.
You seem to want to throw out the entire process and all results achieved so far because they haven't been perfect. They are "wrong".
Aggregated together the models represent trends that have been fairly accurate. As time passes and more validation can be done and models adjusted they will become more and more accurate.
The models might be showing a faster warming trend than is actually happening, or they might not. So you adjust them and keep going forward. It's an iterative process.
To ignore models that show a trend and provide some level of causation analysis is really foolish.
Wow, that's not a loaded graph at all. Realist my foot. More like brainwashed. I will assume the red is mean values because the blue is.
Assuming this is a means graph, I actually see an increasing red line up through about 2000, where it levels off and changes direction.
If you take the last blue section's red line, you will see that there is far more datapoints above the red line near 2000 than towards 2015... errr, 2012 as far as this loaded graph is shown. Add three more years to it, with values below the line. That's an indicator of a change in your delta rate.
In other words... Fail.
Oh that's the IPCC's misconstrued words. I don't read their propaganda, only their findings with science behind it,
These models are way off. By 50%, 100% and more. We can't base our policies on model forecasts that are this deficient. We can't spend trillions on this kind of math. According to the warmists, temperatures should be rising significantly. They are not. Something is wrong with the theory.
