• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent [W:437]

Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

It's a good job then that AGW has nothing to do with liberalism and everything to do with science.

As far as I'm concerned, scientists have a far better track record of not pulling stuff out of their asses than either liberal or conservative politicians.

But that's the problem, this isn't science. Science produces models which make predictions and those predictions are tested against reality to see if the models are accurate. Virtually none of the models have been borne out by reality. Almost all of the predictions have turned out to be entirely false. That means the models are bad. Credible scientists would reject the models and go back to the drawing board. Climate apologists are not doing that. Scientists are only scientists so long as they are actually doing science. There are lots of people who are not.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Good gosh, I've been to Rio Vista. It's an hour-plus drive south of Fort Worth out in the middle of nowhere.

Hmmm your anecdote/opinion, or the government's MSA definition?
Which is more credible?
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

But that's the problem, this isn't science. Science produces models which make predictions and those predictions are tested against reality to see if the models are accurate. Virtually none of the models have been borne out by reality. Almost all of the predictions have turned out to be entirely false. That means the models are bad. Credible scientists would reject the models and go back to the drawing board. Climate apologists are not doing that. Scientists are only scientists so long as they are actually doing science. There are lots of people who are not.

Most of the current models to date are accurate to well within 1%....
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

I agree.

What's inconsistent are the claims from the Pro-AGW crowd who base their assertions on manipulated data.

Who have redifined " Science " according to their arbitrary definitions and who continue to justify fraud because it fits their narrative..

Their destructive solutions that involve Regulating and taxing a trace gas thats needed for photosynthesis is inconsistent with Science.

Sorry, but they need to be challenged. If they were left to their own devices every State in the Nation would be under the crushing economic weight of Carbon emission " solutions " that only wind up fleecing the Middle class.

All one needs to do is look at the destructive effects of Germany's purely ideological dive into solving " Global warming."

Their " Green revolution " has led to massive subsidies payed for by the consumer through higher energy prices, taxes and fees. Germans back in 2013 already payed the Highest amount for electricity in the World but thanks to their conversion to over 100 percent " renewable energy sources " their utility rates increased another 20 percent.

I'm glad you agree, though I'm not certain what you're implying when you say "a trace gas thats needed for photosynthesis".

I think there are destructive attitudes at both ends of the spectrum. I like to think of myself as a person who believes that the science gives evidence that the globe is warming and much of that warming can be attributed to increases in C02 and the majority of C02 comes from burning fossil fuels. Having said that I think under and over reaction can have serious consequences. I am much more moderate in my approach to solutions.

I suspect that we are close to technologies that will, on their own will reduce our use of fossil fuels over the next 25-50 years. I don't think armageddon will occur before then. Mostly though increases in efficiency, electric cars being an example. They still require fossil fuels as about 67% of electricity in the US comes from the burning of fossil fuels. It is much easier to create technologies to reduce carbon emissions at the source, than at the end user.

Now the debate should be, rightfully so, about how much technology we should pay for to reduce carbon emissions? Should we retrofit Coal, oil and gas plants with costly technologies? Or should we spend money on longer term goals of finding viable replacements like wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and even increase insulation and efficient technologies?

IMO there is no silver bullet when you consider the costs of making changes. I realize that overly restrictive rules will only lead to people looking for inexpensive ways to subvert the rules. Case in point a friend of the family has a large business in salvaged cars. He can heat his warehouse with reasonably clean natural gas, or when the prices skyrocket he turns it off and kicks on the waste oil heater that burns used motor oil (he obviously gets for free). Costly taxes and restrictions will have a rate of diminishing return as they become more expensive on the general public and I for one realize that.

Honestly, I think inexpensive common sense ideas are best for existing fossil fuel plants, and R&D for all the other "green technologies" based on real world viability.

It's a conversation worth having if we could just get the moderates on both sides to ignore the zealots.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

But that's the problem, this isn't science. Science produces models which make predictions and those predictions are tested against reality to see if the models are accurate. Virtually none of the models have been borne out by reality. Almost all of the predictions have turned out to be entirely false. That means the models are bad. Credible scientists would reject the models and go back to the drawing board. Climate apologists are not doing that. Scientists are only scientists so long as they are actually doing science. There are lots of people who are not.

Not sure what "predictions" your speaking about, but can you show me a model that accurately assumed all of the external variables like solar output, the El Nino La Nina cycle, the North Atlantic Oscillation and increases in particulates do to the modernization of India and China (to name a few variable and unpredictable external influences)?

I suspect that the bulk of the models that have been shown to be wrong made incorrect assumptions about external prevailing conditions, rather than being outright incorrect.

From here we get into a war of links that attempt to make our points convincing no one because everyone has already decided what they believe and no amount of evidence to the contrary will prove otherwise. Right?
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

I'm glad you agree, though I'm not certain what you're implying when you say "a trace gas thats needed for photosynthesis".

I think there are destructive attitudes at both ends of the spectrum. I like to think of myself as a person who believes that the science gives evidence that the globe is warming and much of that warming can be attributed to increases in C02 and the majority of C02 comes from burning fossil fuels. Having said that I think under and over reaction can have serious consequences. I am much more moderate in my approach to solutions.

I suspect that we are close to technologies that will, on their own will reduce our use of fossil fuels over the next 25-50 years. I don't think armageddon will occur before then. Mostly though increases in efficiency, electric cars being an example. They still require fossil fuels as about 67% of electricity in the US comes from the burning of fossil fuels. It is much easier to create technologies to reduce carbon emissions at the source, than at the end user.

Now the debate should be, rightfully so, about how much technology we should pay for to reduce carbon emissions? Should we retrofit Coal, oil and gas plants with costly technologies? Or should we spend money on longer term goals of finding viable replacements like wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and even increase insulation and efficient technologies?

IMO there is no silver bullet when you consider the costs of making changes. I realize that overly restrictive rules will only lead to people looking for inexpensive ways to subvert the rules. Case in point a friend of the family has a large business in salvaged cars. He can heat his warehouse with reasonably clean natural gas, or when the prices skyrocket he turns it off and kicks on the waste oil heater that burns used motor oil (he obviously gets for free). Costly taxes and restrictions will have a rate of diminishing return as they become more expensive on the general public and I for one realize that.

Honestly, I think inexpensive common sense ideas are best for existing fossil fuel plants, and R&D for all the other "green technologies" based on real world viability.

It's a conversation worth having if we could just get the moderates on both sides to ignore the zealots.

Let the principles of the Free market make the determination of what's viable as far as technological innovation goes and what's snake oil sold under false pretenses.

Germany is a excellent example of what happens when ideology is allowed to run amok.

Without intelligent analysis, without open debate they committed to becoming the Worlds first Nation powered exclusively by " renewable energy sources.".

They shut down their Nuke plants and spent hundreds of Billions of dollars building Solar power plants and building Wind turbines to power their grid.

Renewable energy sources of-course have to be heavily subsidized and its the consumers who've had to bear those massive cost increases as they currently pay over 300 percent more than the average American for their electricity.

Their own Finance minister came out last year and publicly declared their " Energy revolution " as a total failure.

Since Solar and Wind are susceptible to inherent lags the German Government has had to build new Coal fired ( lignite ) power plants and now they rely more on Coal than their " clean energy " solutions for their electricity.

What that means is the German citizens pay 300 percent more for their electricity and their air is dirtier than it was prior to Merkel shutting down their nuke plants.

Global warming is proven with Computer models built with fudged data and processes that have nothing to do with " Science ".

"Homogenizing " ( manipulating ) temperature data to arrive at a predetermined conclusion is not Science, its fraud.

Science involves the objective and honest analysis of EMPERICAL data. What Federal agencies like the NOAA have done is to ignore those basic standards. They've replaced them with arbitrary standards and processes that always back their predetermined conclusions

" Homogenized " temperature data always seems to prove that the Globe is warming.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Nothing that is occurring with the climate is inconsistent with the science.

The poster you're responding to does not know anything about science, because when I asked him to define the scientific technique he was criticizing--statistical homogenization--he can't.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

The poster you're responding to does not know anything about science, because when I asked him to define the scientific technique he was criticizing--statistical homogenization--he can't.

I DID respond.

You must have ignored it. Ok, one more time.

In 2012, the NOAA declared July 2012 to be the hottest month on record, surpassing July 1936 as the previous record holders. Here's their article....

The Summer of 2012 -- Too Hot to Handle? - NASA Science

And the NOAA's " Scientific " graph that shows July 2012 exceeding July 1936 as the Hottest month on record.

noaa_usavg_temps_july_focuson_1936_from_20121.jpg

After a outside SCIENTIST exposed their process of manipulating ( Homogenizing ) temperature data the NOAA, a tax payer funded Federal Agency rescinded their claim. Here's their NEW graph correcting their propaganda. They posted it in June 2014.

noaa_usavg_temps_july_focuson_1936_from_20141.jpg

Interesting. If Homogenization is a accepted practice WHY did the NOAA change their minds ? Oh I know why. They were exposed by a REAL Scientist not affiliated with the NOAA.

Ironic isn't it ? You claiming to be more knowledgeable than me or anyone else Scientifically when you don't even have a basic comprehension of the Scientific Method and how its used to separate fact from fiction ( AGW )

Taking EMPIRICAL data that supposed to be analyzed objectively and running it through some kind of arbitrary filter meant to arrive at a predetermined conclusion is NOT Science. It's fraud

Fraud isn't isolated to Federal Agencies in the US run by Progressives. The Australian Meteorology Association got busted manipulating data too..

Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming - Breitbart

" At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist’s pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.

Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia’s hottest year on record. This prompted Australia’s alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery – an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones – to observe that global warming in Australia was “like climate change on steroids.”
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

But that's the problem, this isn't science. Science produces models which make predictions and those predictions are tested against reality to see if the models are accurate. Virtually none of the models have been borne out by reality. Almost all of the predictions have turned out to be entirely false.

The global warming issue centers around evidence documenting that increases in average global temperatures since the dawn of the industrial revolution is attributed primarily to man-made substances (greenhouse gases),

And that evidence is largely based on the nature of the atomic isotopes forming the bulk of the CO2 molecules trapped in the atmosphere--the heavier atoms in the molecules cannot be formed through natural phenomena.

Cite the evidence showing that this evidence is false and/or that the CO2 isotopes did not originate from artificial sources.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

I DID respond.

You must have ignored it. Ok, one more time.

In 2012, the NOAA declared July 2012 to be the hottest month on record, surpassing July 1936 as the previous record holders. Here's their article....<snip>

You were asked to define statistical homogenization in your own words, and yet nothing you posted contained that.

Once again--if you don't understand what you're criticizing, there's no point in reading your "arguments." NEXT.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Because people need to be educated on the fraud that is AGW.

It looks more like right wingers have to be educated, since they keep arguing against terms/phrases that don't know the meaning of :lol:
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Let the principles of the Free market make the determination of what's viable as far as technological innovation goes and what's snake oil sold under false pretenses.

Excellent, then tell your konservatives pols to quit subsidizing oil cos. with taxpayer monies and stop shielding them from liabilities for their spills, since both are incompatible w/a free market.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Next time I think you should read what they actually said:
https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models
“By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right"

Duke Researcher Denounces Rush Limbaugh's "Ridiculous" Distortion Of His Global Warming Study | Blog | Media Matters for America
"The idea that there 'isn't any warming' is ridiculous. Over the past century there are countless datasets indicating warming (weather stations, sea level, ice mass, ocean temperatures, etc.).
[...]
Our study shows that we are probably not on the worst-case IPCC scenario but that we may be on an IPCC middle-of-the road scenario. The IPCC does not make predictions they make hypothetical projections. So this result does not contradict the IPCC conclusions at all.

The study also stated that natural variability "can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade," and cited this as a reason not to be over-reliant on "short-term temperature trends."
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Most of the current models to date are accurate to well within 1%....

So the polar ice caps really did entirely disappear in 2013, huh? :roll:
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

true.. but its far far from exact and like you said a range... also soil nutrients etc are huge variables

There's more evidence--glaciers, the ice age, fossil record, study of rocks, etc.--

Past climates – evidence | Climate change | Discovering Geology | British Geological Survey (BGS)

However, conservatives don't know anything about geology since they claim the Earth is 4000 years old.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

So the polar ice caps really did entirely disappear in 2013, huh? :roll:

Who claimed the polar ice caps disappeared in 2013? Cite.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Who claimed the polar ice caps disappeared in 2013? Cite.

Al Gore popularized it and he was entirely wrong. In fact, the same year he claimed it would all be gone, the polar ice caps hit a 35-year maximum.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Al Gore popularized it and he was entirely wrong.

Al Gore isn't a scientist. Therefore, any critique of global warming that centers around criticizing something he said or didn't say is irrelevant.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

It looks more like right wingers have to be educated, since they keep arguing against terms/phrases that don't know the meaning of :lol:

And the name of the thread is ?

" Our Climate Models were Wrong " ...

Well of-course they were wrong. They weren't based on empirical evidence and objective analysis and instead were constructed using manipulated data.

Its wasn't people like me that were gullible enough to be taken in by false narratives and ridiculous predictions.

It was and continues to be people like you.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

You were asked to define statistical homogenization in your own words, and yet nothing you posted contained that.

Once again--if you don't understand what you're criticizing, there's no point in reading your "arguments." NEXT.

" Statistical Homogenation " is only credible as long as the people using it continue to go on unchallenged.

Its so " credible " that the NOAA was forced to change their assertions and re-instate July 1936 as the Hottest month on record.

Apparently they didn't give much credence to their own process.

You know, if they had only committed themselves to the age old Scientific process of using empirical data instead of data twisted to give them their desired conclusion they wouldn't have had to change their minds.

But then again if they relied on Empirical evidence in the first place they couldn't have hood winked people like you into believing that AGW exist.

Such is the conundrum that dishonesty creates.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Al Gore isn't a scientist. Therefore, any critique of global warming that centers around criticizing something he said or didn't say is irrelevant.

Nor is he honest, or has any semblance of integrity or cares at all about the " Climate ".
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Most of the current models to date are accurate to well within 1%....
Thats strange
A
ccuracy is the proximity of measurement results to the true value;
From Nature,
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment
Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.
That does not sound like a 1% accuracy to me.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Let the principles of the Free market make the determination of what's viable as far as technological innovation goes and what's snake oil sold under false pretenses.

Germany is a excellent example of what happens when ideology is allowed to run amok.

Without intelligent analysis, without open debate they committed to becoming the Worlds first Nation powered exclusively by " renewable energy sources.".

They shut down their Nuke plants and spent hundreds of Billions of dollars building Solar power plants and building Wind turbines to power their grid.

Renewable energy sources of-course have to be heavily subsidized and its the consumers who've had to bear those massive cost increases as they currently pay over 300 percent more than the average American for their electricity.

Their own Finance minister came out last year and publicly declared their " Energy revolution " as a total failure.

Since Solar and Wind are susceptible to inherent lags the German Government has had to build new Coal fired ( lignite ) power plants and now they rely more on Coal than their " clean energy " solutions for their electricity.

What that means is the German citizens pay 300 percent more for their electricity and their air is dirtier than it was prior to Merkel shutting down their nuke plants.

Global warming is proven with Computer models built with fudged data and processes that have nothing to do with " Science ".

"Homogenizing " ( manipulating ) temperature data to arrive at a predetermined conclusion is not Science, its fraud.

Science involves the objective and honest analysis of EMPERICAL data. What Federal agencies like the NOAA have done is to ignore those basic standards. They've replaced them with arbitrary standards and processes that always back their predetermined conclusions

" Homogenized " temperature data always seems to prove that the Globe is warming.

You don't need computer models to show the correlation between increased C02 and temperature change when taking into account all the other factors that effect temperature.

If it was 80 degrees one day, 100 degrees the next and 80 you wouldn't conclude that the sun isn't warming (or cooling depending on the time of year), you'd look for other strong short term influences, perhaps it was cloudy, or there was a strong breeze off cool water....

Don't look to me to defend Germany's energy policy or try to portray a false dichotomy between green energy=bad and fossil fuels are good. Suggesting that the "free market", a ridiculous euphemism of I've ever heard it, as the market isn't "free". There are plenty of constraints with deep pocketed interests that would like to see fossil fuels as the only viable alternative and, conversely, as you are surely quick to retort, lots of people who bleed green and would like to see all fossil fuels banned tomorrow regardless of the catastrophe that would ensue. It is possible for the "free market" to retard progress for years if not decades based solely on economic interests. I'll freely admit that interests on the other side can also retard progress just as much. When deciding how to proceed with energy alternatives there are a million was to succeed and a million ways to fail. Sounds like Germany has chosen a path to green energy along a path that has failed.

The idea that there is a global conspiracy of climate scientists all fighting for a pool of liberal tree hugging dollars that runs roughshod over the hundreds if not thousands of multi-billion dollar corporations in an effort to smear them is a conspiracy only matched by the ridiculous idea that the moon landings were faked.
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

And that evidence is largely based on the nature of the atomic isotopes forming the bulk of the CO2 molecules trapped in the atmosphere--the heavier atoms in the molecules cannot be formed through natural phenomena.

Cite the evidence showing that this evidence is false and/or that the CO2 isotopes did not originate from artificial sources.
Really? Which isotopes would those be? Since we're talking about "atoms that cannot be formed through natural phenomena" how are these radioisotopes being formed, and why is there such a high concentration given what's got to be a half life measured in seconds or a fraction thereof?
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Al Gore popularized it and he was entirely wrong. In fact, the same year he claimed it would all be gone, the polar ice caps hit a 35-year maximum.

If you are citing Al Gore as a recognized climate scientist as a way to discredit real published peer reviewed work, you sadly underestimate those that disagree with you.

Al Gore, is a POLITICIAN who believes that the ends justify the means, that a lie or deception done for the right reason is ok. Hopefully there isn't anyone on this forum citing Al Gore's work as proof of anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom