NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

The problem with "science" is it is deemed correct fostering long held beliefs until it's proven wrong. Couple of examples are; flat earth, atom is the smallest particle in existence; sun revolves around the earth, proteins were the key to hereditary - not dna, phlogiston (look it up), and the list could go on. Climate change is in the same realm as the former because the variables are far too great to consider and not even used when using computers to predict the future. Solar activity for one. The human ego is too big to admit it doesn't have all the answers.

IRT the CC debate I don't see how computer modeling is observable, it's not. Computer modeling is basically the palm reading of science. IMO science is being used to gas-light the masses on AGW/CC, so far it's working.

a reply to: cuckooold

Explain to me, what exactly is climate denial? I would love to hear this.

I especially love the irony when you asked me if I had some sort of comprehension issue.

lmao classic

a reply to: Euphem

As everyone knows, climate denial does not mean denying that there is climate, but is short for "denying that human activities have any effect on the climate, especially - but not exclusively - global warming". Which is a bit of a mouthfull

This group does not include many climate scientists

Most AGW sceptics, however, are not deniers, but rather question the extent to which human activities have an effect on the climate, how these activities interact with natural factors, and/or whether projections on future climate change caused by such activities are accurate.

Most climate scientists are at least partially members of this very much larger group

a reply to: Phage

why is the rest of the solar system warming?

why has the Sahara desert cycled from jungle to desert over and over?

case closed.

you're wasting your time talking about fossil fuels and our carbon footprint. people like you are too 'smart' for your own good.

The idea that humans can be responsible for climate change is based on the Greenhouse Effect. The Greenhouse Effect isn't theoretical; it works. We release enormous quantities of CO2 and Methane and CFCs into the atmosphere and they prevent solar radiation from escaping our atmosphere, thus heating it. I don't see how anyone can dispute the simple science involved.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: Phage

Phage, can you explain why it is that you are so vehemently against the very idea that these people are not above fudging numbers to push an agenda?

What agenda is that? Here's a hint. Professional scientists are not Marxists who want to destroy Western Civilization and capitalism. And atmospheric research & earth science was funded without any public global warming alerts.

On the other hand, fossil fuel billionaires find their extreme profitability threatened. Who is more likely to have an "agenda"?

And think about it this way---why would scientists happen to choose some conspiratorial agenda (presumably somehow to make money in some undefined and unexplained way) which also threatens the most powerful people on the planet? It makes NO SENSE.

Why not somehow conspire to say "hey we are on the verge of curing cancer if you give us $100B (and fake some immunotherapy success, somehow, worldwide, and every patient's results, and pay off every single family)?" Or "we're about to make warp drive, give us money!!!"

Back in reality, the physical principles and observations which led to the current consensus understanding and consequences were developed in the open without attention or interference for 25 years.

I'm not Phage, but this wrong conspiratorial thinking pisses me off greatly, because believing in it is contributing to avoiding doing something about a global catastrophe.

People can be motivated to fake data, but in this case, it's not true and impossible.

The "fudging" would have to be continuous, worldwide and unadmitted for 50 years or so. And happen to be in exactly the same direction as predicted by the laws of physics.

Fudging data (most often in biomedical science) is usually one person in a lab who wants great results for one key experiment they've been working on for 10 years or so. And it's detected within a couple of years most of the time.

Is it because you can't abide the thought that you bought into a lie?

Who has bought into which lie?

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: Euphem

As everyone knows, climate denial does not mean denying that there is climate, but is short for "denying that human activities have any effect on the climate, especially - but not exclusively - global warming". Which is a bit of a mouthfull

This group does not include many climate scientists

Most AGW sceptics, however, are not deniers, but rather question the extent to which human activities have an effect on the climate, how these activities interact with natural factors, and/or whether projections on future climate change caused by such activities are accurate.

Most climate scientists are at least partially members of this very much larger group

Yes, they are known as scientists. They question---and they question the models and predictions in BOTH directions. They use data and models work in the field and interact regularly with other scientists and publish results and data in major journals.

Only the ones with internal emotional or political agendas happen to always question (and often ignorantly) predictions of more change rather than less change.

However, "AGW skeptics" as commonly used by the conservative media are rarely scientists at all as their skepticism is nearly always wrong and refuted by observation and other analysis---their agenda is to confuse the public and policymakers and give truthiness as spurious ammunition in order to preclude justified policy actions which would hurt powerful people's paychecks.

a reply to: Phage

Oh good God Phage, please don't tell me you bought into the global warming hype.

originally posted by: f4rwest
a reply to: Phage

why is the rest of the solar system warming?

It's not

And based on the Milankovich Cycles, Earth should be cooling (as it has been for the past 4-5,000 years - the Neoglacial

why has the Sahara desert cycled from jungle to desert over and over?

Changes in the Milankovich cycles, which due to subsequent changes in insolation affect the positioning of the ITCZ - though human activity has had a part to play as well, with deforestation and overgrazing by domestic animals increasing desertification.

Why have so many recent years been warmer than any in the 20th century were - to the extent that La Nina years (normally cooler than average) have been warmer than any El Nino year prior to 1998? Even though a negative PDO and reduce solar activity suggests we should be getting colder ..... ?

Why do you deny that deforestation and pollution affects climate? Regardless of CO2 emissions ....

a reply to: Freenrgy2

He also believes the Earth orbits the Sun and that drinking Earl Kircher's magic elixir will not cure consumption, baldness, impotence and hangovers ......

originally posted by: f4rwest
a reply to: Phage

why is the rest of the solar system warming?

It's not!!!! That is yet another myth perpetuated by the AGW propagandists and their followers who simply regurgitate a lie as a "fact". Now I am not about to list here reams and reams of evidence about solar system measurements since they are out there on the net for everyone to access. NB go to the source ESA, NASA etc. And please don't start with the "they always lie" story. After all space agencies like those are the ONLY ones who have the solar system data that even the AGW mob cherry pick to their own advantage . Yes cherry picked data, as per fricking usual (they conveniently omit the part that states that planets have ellipitical orbits and thus have seasonal variations.....just like earth).

OK, now where do I pick up my government cheque for my hard work here........well somebody is going to say that aren't they. It's much easier than READING scientific analysis which is longer than 2 sentences.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Right I agree, but how is AGW denier any harder to say than climate denier. I am pointing out how stupid using the term "climate denier" is.

When someone uses the term "climate denier", or "climate change denier", they are intentionally using a play on words that makes the other person sound ignorant. Not everyone understands the differences between AGW and climate change.

If you lump every person who questions the extent of AGW into a group called climate deniers, you are essentially calling them all idiots when in fact they are the only ones using their brains in the first place.

a reply to: Freenrgy2

He is one of the larger AGW proponents on ATS.

a reply to: mbkennel

So energy companies increasing their prices in the future to deal with these carbon taxes are going to hurt the rich people....rigghhhttttt...

originally posted by: Lanisius
The problem with "science" is it is deemed correct fostering long held beliefs until it's proven wrong. Couple of examples are; flat earth, atom is the smallest particle in existence; sun revolves around the earth, proteins were the key to hereditary - not dna, phlogiston (look it up), and the list could go on.

And what about the thousands of things which modern science has been right on?

Firstly, flat earth was never supported by anybody remotely worthy of being called a 'scientist'---the practice didn't even really get started until maybe 1500-1600.

None of the other assertions were remotely justified by strong experimental evidence at the time.

And, science today is far stronger knowing correct laws of physics for nearly all human-energy and human-scale physical processes than before 1500.

Climate change is in the same realm as the former because the variables are far too great to consider and not even used when using computers to predict the future. Solar activity for one. The human ego is too big to admit it doesn't have all the answers.

We have ENOUGH answers now, which is not the same as saying "doesn't have all the answers".

If you want to refute this, come up with a physical picture and explanation which BETTER explains the observed data than the understanding forged by thousands of scientists over 40 years.

There isn't one.

And scientists also have a pretty good idea when their understanding is weak and when it's strong---in the 1960's already the prospect of global warming from burning fossil fuels was already being considered scientifically, but they also knew that they didn't have the set of global measurements and experimental backing and theoretical understanding necessary to adequately predict the outcome, and said "we need time and data". Eventually, progress happens, and by the early 1990's the result was clear among scientists what would happen and the theory was substantially validated. And all new data coming in from then on has confirmed and enhanced that.

Do scientists know for sure what happened in the first 5 milliseconds of the Big Bang? No, and they know that. They have ideas but not a firm conclusion.

Do scientists know for sure what happens in the atomic physics of a well-studied laser? You bet!

IRT the CC debate I don't see how computer modeling is observable, it's not. Computer modeling is basically the palm reading of science. IMO science is being used to gas-light the masses on AGW/CC, so far it's working.

That's complete BS. All sorts of modern science runs off computer modeling and only when it's global warming and policy consequences are emotionally unpleasant to some does this slur come about.

The models are based on physical laws justified by experiment, just like models used to find petroleum, and design semiconductors, and sent probes to planets, and calibrate pacemakers, and synthesize chemicals, and build aircraft, and virtually everything in physics, chemistry & engineering.

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: [post=180742]
If you lump every person who questions the extent of AGW into a group called climate deniers, you are essentially calling them all idiots when in fact they are the only ones using their brains in the first place.

I respect the people who question the extent of AGW when they publish papers in Journal of Climate and Nature. And nearly always these results aren't anywhere near what the people who are motivated to avoid public policy action think they are.

For example, there is uncertainty about the impact of global warming on hurricanes---will it make them more frequent or stronger? Potentially yes and potentially no---this is a legitimate issue in the climate research community. But even these scientists are very unlikely to subscribe to any of the preposterous conspiracy theories and entirely wrong assertions posited by the externally motivated denialists and which I see repeated here all the time.

I'm as much "pro-AGW" as a physician is "pro-cancer". It's likely to be quite horrible but believing in facts of the world and not convenient untruths is essential for the continued prosperity of human civilization. Note that even professional scientists rarely project out beyond 2100 ---- as the likely results then are so enormously awful that if they were honest the emotional reaction would make things even worse.

Humans are only responsible for 4% of that CO2...

a reply to: theantediluvian

So NASA doesn't say mars is warming??

www.nasa.gov...

Even Wikipedia says it's warming...

a reply to: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: raymundoko
Humans are only responsible for 4% of that CO2...

a reply to: theantediluvian

This is also a lie, easily refuted by the most obvious experimental evidence, namely the Keeling curve.

Keeling Curve


Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280 ppm. They've just hit 400 and will go to 600 the way fossil fuel consumption is going.

And yes, it's from fossil fuels, not volcanoes.

originally posted by: raymundoko
So NASA doesn't say mars is warming??

www.nasa.gov...

Even Wikipedia says it's warming...

a reply to: yorkshirelad

And so what? There can be multiple causes of warming. And most obviously there is no fossil fuel being extracted and burned on Mars so mechanisms of warming on Earth are different.

And yes, the Sun has been studied for decades as a potential driver of climate and changes in solar activity do not explain recent observations but changes in atmosphere from fossil fuels do.