- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,228
- Reaction score
- 14,409
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yes. Its all part of the giant international conspiracy
Have a good day!
Yes. Its all part of the giant international conspiracy
Have a good day!
[h=1]HOW BAD IS THE GOVERNMENT’S SCIENCE? (It’s worse than we thought.)[/h]From the National Association of Scholars via an article in the Wall Street Journal. Policy makers often cite research to justify their rules, but many of those studies wouldn’t replicate Half the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are probably wrong. John Ioannidis, now a professor of medicine at Stanford, made headlines with that claim…
No, I am part of the solution to political driven science.Are you part of the conspiracy? LOL
No, I am part of the solution to political driven science.
Let the data stand of fall on it's own.
You rely on government science every single day
Where do these forking idiots come from that flood forums with such stupidity.
Government research got us to the move, satellite technoloy, the internet, advances in automotives, the entire biotechnology industry, many blockbuster drugs, countless other technoloogies, even google came from university research funded by federal dollars. You can probably credit a lot more where the basic science companies used to develop a product was from federal research
Where do these forking idiots come from that flood forums with such stupidity.
Government research got us to the move, satellite technoloy, the internet, advances in automotives, the entire biotechnology industry, many blockbuster drugs, countless other technoloogies, even google came from university research funded by federal dollars. You can probably credit a lot more where the basic science companies used to develop a product was from federal research
Science is done by individuals, not committees, or scientific organizations.Well that is what every science agency on the planet does. Which one agrees with you on AGW? LOL
Science is done by individuals, not committees, or scientific organizations.
Do you know what those organizations actually agree on related to AGW?
The only common thread, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so yes they all agree with me.
The Science portion of AGW is really simply that, the remaining is a belief that the CO2 forced warming,
will be amplified through feedbacks, to produce additional warming, with a very uncertain range(1.5 to 4.5C).
If we want to call something science, we must have a repeatable test we can point to.
A test that others can replicate in a lab and get similar results.
We can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but beyond that, there is no validated test, showing the amplified feedbacks exists.
The models show they exists, because the assumed feedbacks were programed into the models.
There really are feedbacks, but we do not understand all of them of how they interact.
Some research has found the feedbacks are negative. (lindzen and choi 2011)
This does not even begin to address the question, of, if warming is beneficial, or harmful.
Yep, with ease.No that is not what they agree to. I refer you to the NASA AGW consensus page for quotes of what they believe. Can you find it?
Yep, with ease.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Here is the core of their statement,
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
Now lets do the math.
CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to 406 ppm
The general consensus is that doubling the CO2 level would force warming of 1.1 C,
so 1.1/ln(2)=1.59, so 1.59 X ln(406/280)= .59 C.
So the majority of the observed .89 C of warming over the last century is from CO2 forcing.
This agrees with me, and with the NASA statement.
Notice that none of the predicted amplified feedback is necessary to satisfy Nasa's statement.
Since you pointed to NASA's consensus page, I used NASA's comment,American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
I can go on if you like. LOL
Since you pointed to NASA's consensus page, I used NASA's comment,
I understand what the editors of those statements say, but that is not science.
Where is the peer reviewed science, showing repeatable test, validating the high gain feedbacks necessary
for the catastrophic portion of the AGW predictions?
So then you must agree those agencies are part of an international conspiracy.....or are they just stupid?
Not at all, they understand that many of their members derive funding from findings that appear to agree with the IPCC.So then you must agree those agencies are part of an international conspiracy.....or are they just stupid?
Not at all, they understand that many of their members derive funding from findings that appear to agree with the IPCC.
It is like saying that millions of people conspire together to get up and go to work each day,
the reality is, each is seeking his own best interest, and the result happens to be them all getting up and going to work.
Who said they are lying? The researchers are not, their findings are mostly framed with levels of uncertaintyNo what you are saying is they know the truth but are lying to get funding. All of them. In a international conspiracy. That is your position
Who said they are lying? The researchers are not, their findings are mostly framed with levels of uncertainty
that include most possible outcomes.
The teach graduate classes in how to win grants, it boils down to saying what the reviewers want to hear.
No conspiracy, just individuals trying to get funding.
...from which, as usual, you cherry-picked.Are you saying that a review of the IPCC by the UN is part of a global conspiracy?
Here is the report,
http://reviewipcc.interacademycounc...of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC.pdf
Not a blog but an IPCC assessment report.
"Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented."
Any answer that falls within the range of uncertainty is true.You honor please direct the witness to answer the question. Lol
Are their statements truthful regarding AGW to the best of their knowledge
...from which, as usual, you cherry-picked.
So, what does the IAC really think?
The commitment of many
thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment
process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding
of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and
mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right.
Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and
their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. Through
its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has
heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific
debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations.
The report did have some criticisms of the IPCC, and recommendations for change. None of those objections in any way amounted to a rejection of the vast majority of the science. Quite a bit was about management, media relations, speeding up the summary for policy makers, and so on.
But hey, who cares about that, when you can pluck three sentences out of a 123-page document, and twist it to your own agenda? :roll: