LINK How many oopses until we finally admit we don't have enough knowledge to even begin to predict climate change?
So if scientific study occasionally get a prediction wrong, we should, what ... just give up and go back to reading tea leaves or consulting oracles?
Are their any scientific studies that get it right? Seems to me that there is much running around and hollering and then.....several years later.......a looks like we were wrong again statement pops out.
Perhaps we should not base our lives around "science" that consistently proves it is not accurate. I was taught that precision, accuracy, and predictability were important parts of the scientific method, and that if the predicted result of a hypothesis was not the actual result, it meant the science was wrong. Following tea leaves is just as accurate as following bad, inaccurate science.
We can all go back to wearing our hair really long, having the wimminz pull on their go-go boots, and beating the drum on the next ice age starting in the next 100 years or so. Sooner or later, if we predict everything, something's bound to come true. And then we'll be genuises and real scientists!!1!!11!!11!
I keep forgetting. Is the "boo on global warming" crowd's stance that there is no evidence of climate change at all, or that there is no evidence that it's necessarily man made?
If that was the problem you'd have a point. The issue is far worse and much more insidious. Climate prediction is based on highly advanced computer modeling. The problem is that virtually every time they compare their models to real live data (this is one of many examples), not only doesn't the data match, their models always show far worse results than the real live data. How many times till they say their modeling is crap and test the models with real data BEFORE they issue their doom predictions?
This is more than likely the reason the claims were made. Add to it the fact that at the time algore was front and center and add to that the fact that grant monies flow where the inferred need is greatest. We'll warm and we'll cool in the eons to come and the idea that we can forcast from what has happened for the last billion years based on what we've percieved in a century is preposterous.
No one argues that the climate changes. It always has and always will. The issues are what the climate is actually changing to, how fast, what the causes are and what if anything we can or should do about it.
And the ones screaming the loudest are the people who stand to lose money if we start seriously reigning in carbon emissions. The evidence is convincing enough that the vast overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced, and most of the opposition comes from people who start off with the hope that it can't be true, then work backwards from that. Everyone saying they don't believe in human influenced climate change in this thread, what is your area of scientific expertise and what exact scientific claims and observations do you disagree with?
Of the ones who are trying to get their non viable "green" energy sources off the ground on the taxpayer dime. If the evidence is so convincing, why do the computer models they base the evidence on never hold up when compared to real life data?
I'm just another schmoe on this rock who can see bullshit when the smell is so overwhelming it's enough to make you gag. I'm just a schmoe who sees time and again the likes of algore cashing in all the while telling us to do this while he does that. I'm just a schmoe who realizes that we do indeed have an impact on a finite system but question the motives of anyone who claims to be an advocate of green energies all the while lining their pockets through deceptive means and outright bullshit tactics. I'm just a schmoe who is dog assed tired of our government trying to force regulations on us all the time never considering the costs associated with these legeslations are coming out of my poclket either directly or through the economic morass we find ourselves in. Apophis can end all of this. Come Apophis.
I've always found it interesting that, on the opposite end of the spectrum, the GW Scientists who scream the loudest are the ones most at risk of losing funding should their theories be invalidated.
It's just interesting that, when we have a couple of unusually warm years in a row, or a glacier is seen to be retreating somewhere, that's INDISPUTABLE evidence of humans causing global warming. But when we have 12 years(!) in a row of lower temperatures and a huge glacier is seen to hardly change at all--despite the tremendous increases in CO2 output by man over that same interval--we're told that this means nothing and should be ignored. I've always been cautiously skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and I've always had the nagging doubt that so many loud voices advancing its claims with certainty and reports of unquestionable science couldn't possibly be all wrong. Now I'm angry, because I believe the whole thing is utter hogwash. Models did not predict this 12 year lull. Satellite sensing shows that CO2 does not have nearly the profound effect the AGW crowd claims it has. I've heard claims of sea levels rising to flood nations and of temperatures that would ruin farmlands and animal habitats FOR going on 25 years(!)...and none of it has come to pass, though it's always claimed to be right around the corner. I've seen so-called scientists claim that these findings were beyond criticism and question, only to see in their e-mails that they themselves have misgivings about their central tenets. I don't even see a plausible trend to back up that claim anymore. We're seeing that great big ball of fire in the sky has a far, far greater influence on the climate. Yes, climate changes. Whether humans contribute their measly few percent of CO2 to the environment or not makes not one damned bit of difference. Get ready. Because we're going to go back to the "New Ice Age" claims shortly. I'm sure CO2 will somehow be responsible for that, too...
These guys are making the mistake of the boy who cried wolf: they're trying to tell the same lie over and over. Or rather, they are trying to make it seem like they've always Sao the same thing, except the latest version of the same thing is also wrong.
