Global Warming Theory cannot be considered to be a science any longer

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

how's that no-warming in the oceans going for your mind?

must be nice to omit the facts that don't fit your agenda.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

I was right - this isn't science anymore. This is a political issue.

The facts no longer matter. The fact that there has been no warming for almost 20 years means nothing.

Tired of Control Freaks

It is not science to you, it is obvious that you just ignore the science and fabricate your own facts.

There is no.basis for your claim that 'there has been.no warming for 20 years'. You want to make this a political issue and a war of words because you know that if the actual science was discussed you would get powned(again).

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

I was right - this isn't science anymore. This is a political issue.

The facts no longer matter. The fact that there has been no warming for almost 20 years means nothing.

Tired of Control Freaks

It is not science to you, it is obvious that you just ignore the science and fabricate your own facts.

There is no.basis for your claim that 'there has been.no warming for 20 years'. You want to make this a political issue and a war of words because you know that if the actual science was discussed you would get powned(again).

Flawed models VS skepticism hmm.

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

ok here is the link for Organizing for Action

www.barackobama.com...#/

This absolutely real. And there is a long list of politicians pictured and listed as deniers

Good for Barack(and his webpage designers)! The politicians who reject science need to.be called out.

I've shared this link on FB and twitter to help get the message out.

Thanks for the link buddy!

Presidential intimidation and coersion is fine right? hello commie hit list revision 2. reminds me of the years before commie trials. Heading that way again it seems.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod

Actually, I have searching the net and I must agree that harassment is occuring on both sides.

The whole issue is now between those who believe and those who don't.

I was right - this isn't science anymore. This is a political issue.

The facts no longer matter. The fact that there has been no warming for almost 20 years means nothing.

Tired of Control Freaks

One thing...you said this "The fact that there has been no warming for almost 20 years means nothing."

But 2015 is the warmest year on record...supported by data and many papers, articles and reports. So...that would mean that there has been warming in the past 20 years. LOL Yes?

a reply to: amazing

& the year before, 2014. They got nothin, but no use trying to reason with them.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod

Actually, I have searching the net and I must agree that harassment is occuring on both sides.

The whole issue is now between those who believe and those who don't.

I was right - this isn't science anymore. This is a political issue.

The facts no longer matter. The fact that there has been no warming for almost 20 years means nothing.

Tired of Control Freaks

One thing...you said this "The fact that there has been no warming for almost 20 years means nothing."

But 2015 is the warmest year on record...supported by data and many papers, articles and reports. So...that would mean that there has been warming in the past 20 years. LOL Yes?

The temperature data is very effective for countering claims.

However the effects of warming are currently in question. The recent study from NASA which eliminated all of the melting from one of our poles completely calls into question the source of the observed sea level rises. Until this is accounted for then the entire model clearly has some serious issues in that it is somehow making correct predictions in one area, but the data being used is wrong.

This is why politicizing science is stupid.

Fact, the current model is in question with the massive amount of melting that was eliminated. Until this is resolved arguing about deniers this or that is foolish.

Oh there is a climate summit under way and 350.org has been organizing activists for the past several years? That explains all the stupid hit pieces with bad science I see everywhere.

-FBB

originally posted by: ringdingdong
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

how's that no-warming in the oceans going for your mind?

must be nice to omit the facts that don't fit your agenda.

Has anyone here denied that there are anomalies in the weather

Your argument Is based on an error of understanding

originally posted by: ringdingdong
we're on a board filled with paranoid fools. of course if they can't grasp the science they will deny it. not wasting my time trying to convince them what should have been obvious from the get-go... they don't got what it takes, leave the poor fools be.

Paranoid fools, hmmm

Human caused Climate change believers. "the world is ending because it's overheating and we will all be thanksgiving turkeys, let's run around in panick"

Deniers " Let's wait for the science to show us the evidence "

So who is or are the paranoid fools

Guess

a reply to: Raggedyman
Now has any reasonable person made such a claim? That we are panicking and going to cook as a result of AGW? I only aee the denier crowd make those claims against us, who accept the science.

"The wait for the science to show us the evidence" is not exactly an intelligent thing to say about being skeptical of AGW, considering we have had over a lifetime to study this, and the science has produced a plethora of evidence that supports AGW.

If a lifetime of science research isn't enough of a time frame for you consider the science research valid, then no amount of time and research will be enough to convince you.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Not my stance, but nice try Mr paranoid.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Raggedyman
Now has any reasonable person made such a claim? That we are panicking and going to cook as a result of AGW? I only aee the denier crowd make those claims against us, who accept the science.

"The wait for the science to show us the evidence" is not exactly an intelligent thing to say about being skeptical of AGW, considering we have had over a lifetime to study this, and the science has produced a plethora of evidence that supports AGW.

If a lifetime of science research isn't enough of a time frame for you consider the science research valid, then no amount of time and research will be enough to convince you.

You are kidding right?

There are plenty of people who are screaming fire in a packed theatre. James Hansen for one, as evidenced by his leaked memo to the press which contained rhetoric which was unsupported by his research. Then there are the actual activists constantly harping on people about countries drowning.

Drowning countries!? Are you freaking serious no way people would say that!

Drowning World

Extreme weather, sometimes related to climate change, seems to be everywhere these days. And yet it can be hard to see the impact on individual lives. I began documenting that impact in 2007, when I photographed two floods that occurred within weeks of each other, one in the U.K. and the other in India. I was deeply struck by the contrasting effects of these floods and the shared vulnerability that seemed to unite their victims.

. . .

The flood is an ancient metaphor in many cultures, a destructive force that renders humans powerless. As weather becomes more extreme, the biblical is becoming literal.

Drowning Megacities

The IPCC doesn't support any of these BS claims by the journalists. These are things projected to be possibilities and here are the activists drumming up fear-porn for the masses to have an experience (not unlike a church exorcism ritual).

Please don't act like there isn't loads of BS spewing from the climate change believer's camp.

-FBB

I have read absolutely nothing (sorry not nothing, I've read bits in papers) but on the posts point I've always understood scientists questioned scientists conclusions. Isn't it called Peer Review. Now if some other power is putting pressure on the scientists questioning AGW then something smells.
Now let me give my view on the for and against and really answer you all . If and I say if the pro AGW had the definitive evidence then it would be an open and shut case. But they haven't have they. What they have is evidence to show different global phenomena. That's it. Where their fail is how they project their data by using simulations which everyone knows is totally dependant on how the information is treated, over what period and what could be self selected data.
I don't think anyone could deny that the world is changing but, with the biggest but in the world, the Earth IS a dynamic entity, it is changing all the while and as man is the only virtual controlling entity (ie. man could destroy the planet in an instant or long term, no other entity can do that) it could still be down to a natural cycle.
If it is man causing this then hitting the ordinary man in the street is false. It HAS to be the large companies and global conglomerates that cause the polution that has to pay the price. And I don't mean those same corperations passing the book to the ordinary man. They are the ones making their billions through polution, they should pay.

a reply to: amazing

please allow me to clarify

There has been no significant warming in almost 20 years.

The industrial age started in the late 1880's. From the 1880s to about the 1950s, we used the mostly dirty coal with no control on CO2 emissions. Despite this fact, there was no warming. In fact there was cooling in the 1970s. Warming did not start till the late 1980s. Warming appears to have "paused" from the mid 1990s until now.

NOAA counts rate of warming on 30 year averages. The rate of warming in the last 19 years has been slower than the rate of warming in the 15 years before that.

The models did not predict this.

www.wsj.com...

There have been various explanations but none of them have been satisfactory. The ocean ate it is one. The other by Jim Hansen himself is that particulate in the atmosphere are blocking it.

This is a link to the exact study

www.sciencemag.org...

The study now purports that there was no pause, it is just the the data set was wrong in the first place and has now been corrected (again)

In short the new explanation is, "our first data set was wrong" This next set of data is right and shows that there was no slow down in the rate of warming"

So - we seem to have a problem here. If the theory of global warming is based on the warming that started occurrring in the late 1980s and early 1990s, during a time when we had instrument measurement was wrong - how can we have any confidence in the new set of data and how can we have confidence in historical data sets for which no instrument measurements are available.

Why does every "error" found require an adjustment in only 1 direction. Up and never down. Since there are only 2 directions, up or down, adjustments down have a 50 % chance of being rquired.


Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: amazing

please allow me to clarify

There has been no significant warming in almost 20 years.

The industrial age started in the late 1880's. From the 1880s to about the 1950s, we used the mostly dirty coal with no control on CO2 emissions. Despite this fact, there was no warming. In fact there was cooling in the 1970s. Warming did not start till the late 1980s. Warming appears to have "paused" from the mid 1990s until now.

NOAA counts rate of warming on 30 year averages. The rate of warming in the last 19 years has been slower than the rate of warming in the 15 years before that.

The models did not predict this.

www.wsj.com...

There have been various explanations but none of them have been satisfactory. The ocean ate it is one. The other by Jim Hansen himself is that particulate in the atmosphere are blocking it.

This is a link to the exact study

www.sciencemag.org...

The study now purports that there was no pause, it is just the the data set was wrong in the first place and has now been corrected (again)

In short the new explanation is, "our first data set was wrong" This next set of data is right and shows that there was no slow down in the rate of warming"

So - we seem to have a problem here. If the theory of global warming is based on the warming that started occurrring in the late 1980s and early 1990s, during a time when we had instrument measurement was wrong - how can we have any confidence in the new set of data and how can we have confidence in historical data sets for which no instrument measurements are available.

Why does every "error" found require an adjustment in only 1 direction. Up and never down. Since there are only 2 directions, up or down, adjustments down have a 50 % chance of being rquired.


Tired of Control Freaks

I don't understand that reply completely. Because, 2015 was the warmest year on record...like forever when we started taking temp readings. I also keep reading that 2014 was the second warmest year on record...then I read that the past ten years have all broken some temp records. It appears that the earth has been warming over the past 20-30 years.

This warming isn't relying on any of the models your speaking about. It's just hard scientific data. Meaning temperature readings from cities on earth, Ocean temp readings, higher elevation(atmospheric) readings.

so how does that actual data relate to your last post.

www.climatecentral.org...

all that link shows are the ten hottest years on record. I'm not sure how you can say there is no warming if we keep getting warmer.

a reply to: amazing

I am sorry but you haven't published a really good source to understand what I am saying. I will not however that the source you have linked has already been updated with the higher temperatures so recently identified in the June 2015 study (the data set that has been "corrected"

perhaps this link would better serve the purpose

www.spiegel.de...

This man is an advisor to Angela Merkel. He is hardly and sceptic by anyone's definition.

If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

AND he actually talks like a man of science. Of course This interview was dated in 2013. We are now at 19 years and 8 months with no significant increase in global temperature (unless you want to believe in the newly "corrected" version)

I would suggest that you check the original study for yourself and confirm that every correction increased the warming. There was no instance in which the adjustment was downward. You know what - that is just not statistically believable. Its funny how they had to "correct" the old data set just before we hit the 20 year mark!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I wrote no reasonable person. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Hansen has since redacted his extreme predictions.

Clearly when you and others in your camp just deny and misdirect the science.

We have been studying this for over a lifetime, to say we need more time and more evidence at this point is unreasonable and irrational.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Global Temperatures have only varied by 1 degree in a century. One degree is NOT a cause for concern. It is the rate of warming in the last 30 years or so that is of concern.

Remember too - holding a record for warmest year in 120 years in nothing. The globe is millions of years old. It would be just as easier to say that the year 10,000 years ago holds the record for warmest year. The global has been warmer before and it has been colder before.

It is the rate of warming that indicates that man made source of CO2 are affecting the climate.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So now that you cannot deny there has been warming over the past 20years, you claim the rise is insignificant?

Keep moving those goal posts...

Do you have any idea how many BTUs that 1° amounts to globally, and how many tons of ice that has the potential to melt?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Do you have any idea how many BTUs that 1° amounts to globally, and how many tons of ice that has the potential to melt?

I agree Jord, it's absolutely terrifying stuff!

Lucky we have someone as level-headed as you to keep these silly deniers on ATS in order.

By the way, how many tonnes of ice does does that temperature increase equate to?

Should I make a boat just in case?