|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 25, 2023 21:05:46 GMT
He knows that what was meant to happen has not because it is becoming warmer, he knows that C02 has increased and the relative rise in temrperature has not occurred, he knows that some glaciers are increasing, he knows that droughts, floods hurricanes and blizzards are not at odds with the historical record and are not accelerating in strength or frequency. As for ice free areas some of these also happened in 1922, he knows that as well. That one alone shows the lie you are prepared to live. How many glaciers are growing? One? Two. Frankly such lies are disgusting because those who so want it all to go away cling to them for succour. Its the same with all your other cherry picked vents. 1922 had SOME ice free areas? Does he know why? Bet he does. And the Bering straits are clear every year now. And here in several little nutshells is the eternal problem. The climate is a shifting thing and effects are due to a multitude of factors and glaciers retreat not only because it is becoming warmer and can advance because it is becoming warmer and retreat when it is colder. Some can even grow when many others retreat, it is a complex story. The Bering strait is a similar tale of complexity. What grates the most is the use of individual events as being indicative evidence of catastrophic global warming. Look we had record temperatures it is AGW, most glaciers are retreating it is AGW, teh Bering strait is ice free it is AGW, we had record rainfall it is AGW, we had a drought it is AGW, we had floods in Pakistan it is AGW. Of course he knows why because the cherry picking of events is very much part of the game that is being played. We have had and are in a global warming pause 8 years long according to the data used by the IPCC, some places are on average warmer some on average a little colder, some wetter, some drier, some sea levels as far as can be ascertained have risen a few inches, some have even dropped. It is the attribution of AGW to each and every detail that is the climate when the records show that greenhouse gases significantly increased in their emissions yet the predicted runaway tipping point of catastrophe has not occurred, we produce more food (until we are forcibly told not to) and coal and oil are free flowing in ever greater volumes |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Mar 27, 2023 7:22:37 GMT
It's a funny thing that if you come up with a theory of, say, gravity that doesn't work very well people will just reject it. But if you come up with a computer model that doesn't work at all people will still believe what it says. So we had the weird situation that, during the pandemic, SAGE used Neil Ferguson's pandemic model - despite the fact that it had been proved totally inaccurate on many occasions before. It always massively overpredicted how many people catch the virus - and it did so again. Of course. And we have the same situation here. The computer climate models have never worked - and never will. They're Like the weather models on which they're based, in that they're deterministic models attempting to model a stochastic system. The difference is that the weather models can be very roughly accurate over a few days which is of some value. After that they need to be reset with correct data. But that doesn't work very well for climate models whose only value is to be accurate over decades. Yet the only guarantee is that they will be wrong. And people still believe it.  |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 27, 2023 22:46:11 GMT
It's a funny thing that if you come up with a theory of, say, gravity that doesn't work very well people will just reject it. But if you come up with a computer model that doesn't work at all people will still believe what it says. So we had the weird situation that, during the pandemic, SAGE used Neil Ferguson's pandemic model - despite the fact that it had been proved totally inaccurate on many occasions before. It always massively overpredicted how many people catch the virus - and it did so again. Of course. And we have the same situation here. The computer climate models have never worked - and never will. They're Like the weather models on which they're based, in that they're deterministic models attempting to model a stochastic system. The difference is that the weather models can be very roughly accurate over a few days which is of some value. After that they need to be reset with correct data. But that doesn't work very well for climate models whose only value is to be accurate over decades. Yet the only guarantee is that they will be wrong. And people still believe it. The funny thing is they call it science yet cannot abide a view not in the line with the consensus. Teaching was at one time about 'enquiring minds' now it is about teaching dogma;- UGLY: Climate Skeptic Group Gets EVICTED from National Science Teaching Association Convention "We had an exhibit booth and were attending the NSTA convention, but they were having none of it. We were thrown out of the NSTA annual convention yesterday for exposing their position on the teaching of climate change. Our science was not on the “Approved List” by them." wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/27/co2-coalition-gets-evicted-from-national-science-teachers-association-convention/The NTSA are supposed to be looking at good science in education as per their blurb "Vision Science literacy and education are recognized as vital to the future of our society, enabling us to make informed decisions about the collective challenges we face. Mission Transform science education to benefit all through professional learning, partnerships and advocacy. Our Guiding Principles Build Community We believe that the community of science educators extends beyond the classroom, and that together science educators influence and advance change. Include All We believe that all educators have a critical role in cultivating science literacy and that all learners deserve access to a high-quality science education." www.nsta.org/overviewIt seems 'good science education' brooks no variance from the preferred position. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Mar 28, 2023 7:02:42 GMT
The only rational view of "climate change" is that we don't yet understand what's going on - and any genuine scientist will admit that. The problem that the "believers" have is that they're trying to maintain the fiction that we do. This involves changing their models regularly - and sometimes also manipulating the data . I think this is why they're unwilling to defend their position and try to shut down any debate of the facts - they sometimes get fairly aggressive about it. The BBC no longer gives a platform to those who don't follow the climate change "orthodoxy". They're censored like those who talk about vaccine side-effects, which are becoming more apparent with time. I don't know if you watch Richard Tice on Sunday morning but he often has a section where he has a debate about climate change (or net zero), involving those who believe and those who don't. But he's finding it increasingly difficult to get any believers who are willing to argue their position in front of a skeptic who knows something about the subject. It's quite difficult a difficult position to defend. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 28, 2023 7:11:58 GMT
It's a funny thing that if you come up with a theory of, say, gravity that doesn't work very well people will just reject it. But if you come up with a computer model that doesn't work at all people will still believe what it says. So we had the weird situation that, during the pandemic, SAGE used Neil Ferguson's pandemic model - despite the fact that it had been proved totally inaccurate on many occasions before. It always massively overpredicted how many people catch the virus - and it did so again. Of course. And we have the same situation here. The computer climate models have never worked - and never will. They're Like the weather models on which they're based, in that they're deterministic models attempting to model a stochastic system. The difference is that the weather models can be very roughly accurate over a few days which is of some value. After that they need to be reset with correct data. But that doesn't work very well for climate models whose only value is to be accurate over decades. Yet the only guarantee is that they will be wrong. And people still believe it. The funny thing is they call it science yet cannot abide a view not in the line with the consensus. Teaching was at one time about 'enquiring minds' now it is about teaching dogma;- UGLY: Climate Skeptic Group Gets EVICTED from National Science Teaching Association Convention To give an idea of just how corrupted the infrastructure of science has become, the prestigious science journal Nature has recently decided to explicitly endorse a political candidate. This sort of partially and bias, in a supposed scientific institution, would have been entirely off the map 30 years ago |
|
