Arctic Warming Causing Cold Weather

[fbrissette]

He purged anyone with a dissenting belief........because.......you know....that's exactly how science works.

You're confusing science with religion.

And frankly, looking back at the last 300 years of technological and biomedical advances, I thinks it's safe to say that science works just fine and it needs no fixing from you and your friends.

This has been entertaining but it's obvious we're wasting our time. We are clearly living in parallel scientific universes. I'll stick to the one that lives through the process of science. You can stick to yours, where dubious websites, youtube videos and conspiracy theories rule.

 

[ScottySkis]

Impossible. Their failure is so complete that it became scientifically implausible to hide behind "soon", and "you'll see" much longer.

For YEARS they denied that the warming that was predicted wasnt occurring. They couldnt deny and hide any longer. It was a completely untenable position.



Who said anything about a conspiracy?



BIG TIME. Same with Al Gore in the early 1990's.

If you didnt believe in man-made Global Warming, your ass was tossed out of NOAA. He purged anyone with a dissenting belief........because.......you know....that's exactly how science works.

When you got tossed from NOAA did they have an air bag for the person to land on?

 

[jack97]

You're confusing science with religion.

And frankly, looking back at the last 300 years of technological and biomedical advances, I thinks it's safe to say that science works just fine and it needs no fixing from you and your friends.

This has been entertaining but it's obvious we're wasting our time. We are clearly living in parallel scientific universes. I'll stick to the one that lives through the process of science. You can stick to yours, where dubious websites, youtube videos and conspiracy theories rule.

Running the multiple scenarios with flawed climate models which has not predicted the pause is bad. Basing these scenario to dictate public policy is plain idiot. I prefer to live in the parallel universe where theories correlates to the observations.

At least the alarmist such as Trenberth and England are looking into natural causes but are still looking at ways to tied this to the save their precious greenhouse gas theory.

 

[BenedictGomez]

We are clearly living in parallel scientific universes. I'll stick to the one that lives through the process of science.

The "process of science" that I learned at university while getting my Bachelor of Science degree taught me that if your hypothesis is broken, it's time to either reevaluate your science or perhaps admit failure.

What it didn't teach me is to desperately cling to straws, fabricate data to support your hypothesis, hide data that contradicts your hypothesis, rejigger computer models, or move the goalposts for evaluation out at LEAST another 20 or 30 years to ensure that the government money train keeps on rolling into the station.

 

[Cannonball]

The "process of science" that I learned at university while getting my Bachelor of Science degree taught me that if your hypothesis is broken, it's time to either reevaluate your science or perhaps admit failure.

What it didn't teach me is to desperately cling to straws, fabricate data to support your hypothesis, hide data that contradicts your hypothesis, rejigger computer models, or move the goalposts for evaluation out at LEAST another 20 or 30 years to ensure that the government money train keeps on rolling into the station.

You're adorable

 

[Nick]

That's when you know a polarizing subject has gone epic.......

Pun intended?

 

[fbrissette]

The "process of science" that I learned at university while getting my Bachelor of Science degree taught me that if your hypothesis is broken, it's time to either reevaluate your science or perhaps admit failure.

No university teaches the process of science at the Bachelor level and it's barely done at all at the MSc level, as is painfully obvious from your arguments.

What it didn't teach me is to desperately cling to straws, fabricate data to support your hypothesis, hide data that contradicts your hypothesis, rejigger computer models, or move the goalposts for evaluation out at LEAST another 20 or 30 years to ensure that the government money train keeps on rolling into the station.

It is mind boggling to me how anyone can come up with such a distorted view. What you are describing is indeed a worldwide conspiracy to defraud the government of taxpayer money.

 

[flightschool]

All environmental issues are political. All of them. Everyone wants a clean environment but a clean environment is really expensive and ultimately, very few are willing to pay for it. I'll give you a very simple example:

Quebec water drinking standards are below that of EPA for several contaminants. Because of concerns from various family and environmental groups, the provincial government decided to match EPA standards. You might think that this is a very simple issue, but the union of municipalities immediately lobbied against this. They were not against it per se, but they wanted the provincial government to pay for the updating of treatment plants. If forced to pay for it, they would have to cut services and jobs. The provincial government does not want to pay for the upgrading and did not want to cut services or jobs or raise income taxes. 10 years later, we are still stuck with our sub-standard drinking water regulations. There are lots of examples like this one.

Reducing our dependence to greenhouse gases will demand important and extremely costly measures. A shitload of money in the short term. Although this is not a settled issue, consensus is that we'll save money in the long run, and mostly it is the right thing to do, if only in fairness to the most vulnerable nations that played no role in this situation. However, there are very large companies and a large sector of the economy that have a strong economic interest in the status quo. Very large profitable companies must keep shareholders happy and are not interesting in changing their business model, or would like to do so as slowly as possible. Hence the intense lobbying and disinformation (there is also some disinformation at the other end, but on a much smaller and less organized scale). They denied warming for as long as they could. Now that everybody agrees on the warming trend, they argue that humans play little to no role in it. Eventually, they'll move to their last stand - that reducing greenhouse gases will be more costly than adapting to a warmer planet.

In the end it is all about money. The more money, the more political it gets. Read about the tobacco lobbying against cancer to understand the extent to which companies are willing to go to keep their lucrative business model intact. The chemical industry lobbying effort against the ban of CFCs and the science behind it is another good example.

2 Things. First, I agree with money driving politicization, but you seem to only observe it playing a role on the side of those who claim not to believe in AGW.

Second, my first posts were merely an attempt to examine how staggering the requirements are for either group to support their hypothesis enough to make logical and well-intentioned disagreements seem unfounded.

My stance is no one knows, I don't know, but I find it concerning that many people claim clairvoyance based solely on "strong scientific consensus".

 

[Rowsdower]

The "process of science" that I learned at university while getting my Bachelor of Science degree taught me that if your hypothesis is broken, it's time to either reevaluate your science or perhaps admit failure.

What it didn't teach me is to desperately cling to straws, fabricate data to support your hypothesis, hide data that contradicts your hypothesis, rejigger computer models, or move the goalposts for evaluation out at LEAST another 20 or 30 years to ensure that the government money train keeps on rolling into the station.

If my hypothesis was wrong it only means I was wrong. I have still learned something even if my results are negative. What usually happens next is I form a new question "why did this come out a way I didn't expect?" and generate a new hypothesis to continue the investigation.

It would be bad science to simply give up without trying to answer your question. Nobody in climate science is going to go "oh the world isn't warming, we can go home now". They will continue to find ways of explaining why the climate behaves the way it does, and how we can use that knowledge to make predictions about the climate, and our potential impact on it. What a lot of deniers are dong is bad science, because they want the debate to be over. They aren't attempting to learn anything new about how the system works, only refute and reinterpret data and models others are using in that attempt in order to discredit anything that contradicts with a non-warming or non-AGW view. You cannot enter an experiment with a preconceived notion of what you want to find, and warming deniers do this constantly. They are not interested in explaining how the climate behaves, warming or not, they are only interested in reaching a certain foregone conclusion.

I see the same thing in all sorts of "controversies" in science. I'm most familiar with evolution deniers, but the pattern is the same. They go in saying "I dont agree with this theory" an there's usually a non-scientific ulterior motive. Then they will present data in a way that supports their argument. No original work, no attempt to explain the system, only trying to find gaps or contradictions in the current literature. If you wanted to refute global warming, then collect data that supports an alternative explanation. Is the world cooling, is it staying stable? Can you explain how a cooling or stable system behaves? Do you have a way of modeling that? These are the experiments your camp has to conduct, but hasn't. All the experiments that have been done support a warming model. You need to do more than criticize that model, you need to produce evidence that supports your theory. You need to explain how the system is working, not just throw your hands up and say the other guy is wrong.

I know you might think there is a conspiracy to put down that kind of work, but I can tell you as a scientist its simply not possible. There is no way to censor thousands of independent researchers around the world, with many different sources of funding. The way the data is collected and interpreted is open to public scrutiny as well. The idea that scientists are in collusion is laughable, especially when the research climate is one where everybody wants to be the first to come out with the next breakthrough. It's just not happening. If global warming is such a bald faced conspiracy, and the actual evidence for a stable or cooling globe are right in front of us, it shouldn't be so hard for somebody to provide an explanation and model that system in a way that predicts climate better than current models do.

 

[fbrissette]

First, I agree with money driving politicization, but you seem to only observe it playing a role on the side of those who claim not to believe in AGW.

It plays on both sides indeed. However, on one side you have the oil companies, the transportation industry at large and the free-market conservatives. On the other side you have university and research center scientists (core of the IPCC), and the environmental groups. I think it's pretty obvious who has more leverage and more to lose.

Just like you had chemicals companies against science in the 1970 CFC debate, or tobbaco industries against science in the cancer debate.

My stance is no one knows, I don't know, but I find it concerning that many people claim clairvoyance based solely on "strong scientific consensus".

'Strong' scientific consensus can only be achieved through strong evidence. Science that goes against mainstream ideas is obviously more difficult to get published because it will naturally be more scrutinized. But good science always gets published, and there are countless example of that in the scientific literature.

 

[fbrissette]

I see the same thing in all sorts of "controversies" in science. I'm most familiar with evolution deniers, but the pattern is the same. They go in saying "I dont agree with this theory" an there's usually a non-scientific ulterior motive. Then they will present data in a way that supports their argument. No original work, no attempt to explain the system, only trying to find gaps or contradictions in the current literature. If you wanted to refute global warming, then collect data that supports an alternative explanation.

Well said.

 

[Puck it]

No university teaches the process of science at the Bachelor level and it's barely done at all at the MSc level, as is painfully obvious from your arguments. It is mind boggling to me how anyone can come up with such a distorted view. What you are describing is indeed a worldwide conspiracy to defraud the government of taxpayer money.

Your first statement is your opinion if so support it with data. I think all natural sciences still conduct labs in college to teach the scientific method.

Your second statement is off base also. I would never call another peer's theory as being mind boggling. I would try and point out their deficiencies. And support with data. This is one of the things that I take offense with from advocates. I am not saying they all do it but the press has blown this up to a cult for the lack of a better word.

Before you slam me, I do think we need to do something dumping hydrocarbons and CO2 into the air. But not the sacrifice of the economy. Air and solar are not the answer. Nukes are but they have other issues. Invest in new tech is the answer but the level of spending is not there. Fossil fuels are still the cheapest and safest to producing our energy. Which we need to live and earn money. We could go to $8 a gallon gas with taxes. What would that do the tourist trade let alone our dear ski areas?

 

[flightschool]

If my hypothesis was wrong it only means I was wrong. I have still learned something even if my results are negative. What usually happens next is I form a new question "why did this come out a way I didn't expect?" and generate a new hypothesis to continue the investigation.

It would be bad science to simply give up without trying to answer your question. Nobody in climate science is going to go "oh the world isn't warming, we can go home now". They will continue to find ways of explaining why the climate behaves the way it does, and how we can use that knowledge to make predictions about the climate, and our potential impact on it. What a lot of deniers are dong is bad science, because they want the debate to be over. They aren't attempting to learn anything new about how the system works, only refute and reinterpret data and models others are using in that attempt in order to discredit anything that contradicts with a non-warming or non-AGW view. You cannot enter an experiment with a preconceived notion of what you want to find, and warming deniers do this constantly. They are not interested in explaining how the climate behaves, warming or not, they are only interested in reaching a certain foregone conclusion.

I see the same thing in all sorts of "controversies" in science. I'm most familiar with evolution deniers, but the pattern is the same. They go in saying "I dont agree with this theory" an there's usually a non-scientific ulterior motive. Then they will present data in a way that supports their argument. No original work, no attempt to explain the system, only trying to find gaps or contradictions in the current literature. If you wanted to refute global warming, then collect data that supports an alternative explanation. Is the world cooling, is it staying stable? Can you explain how a cooling or stable system behaves? Do you have a way of modeling that? These are the experiments your camp has to conduct, but hasn't. All the experiments that have been done support a warming model. You need to do more than criticize that model, you need to produce evidence that supports your theory. You need to explain how the system is working, not just throw your hands up and say the other guy is wrong.

I know you might think there is a conspiracy to put down that kind of work, but I can tell you as a scientist its simply not possible. There is no way to censor thousands of independent researchers around the world, with many different sources of funding. The way the data is collected and interpreted is open to public scrutiny as well. The idea that scientists are in collusion is laughable, especially when the research climate is one where everybody wants to be the first to come out with the next breakthrough. It's just not happening. If global warming is such a bald faced conspiracy, and the actual evidence for a stable or cooling globe are right in front of us, it shouldn't be so hard for somebody to provide an explanation and model that system in a way that predicts climate better than current models do.

If the models showing warming are accurate models, they should also be applicable to a cooling system as well since both warming and cooling are historically part of the climate, and there would be no need for other models to be built. Saying other models need to be built to support a cooling phenomena is admitting your models are incomplete at best, or worse, useless.

 

[Puck it]

Well said.

Not well said, the whole idea of the scientific method is to verify or refute one's hypothesis. And that is what some scientists are doing.

 

[Rowsdower]

If the models showing warming are accurate models, they should also be applicable to a cooling system as well since both warming and cooling are historically part of the climate, and there would be no need for other models to be built. Saying other models need to be built to support a cooling phenomena is admitting your models are incomplete at best, or worse, useless.

If you model climate based on your best estimations of whatever climate scientists use to model climate, and you get a warming system, then what? Doesn't mean the model is broken, it just means under current conditions that's what the model predicts. This is sort of my point. If you are a proponent for a cooling climate, for instance, then either you need data that predicts a cooling climate with current models, or you need a way to explain how current conditions will add up to cooling.

If the models are wrong, and all the climate data and observations we've made so far are not an indication, and there really is no warming trend, then fantastic. But so far, the evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise.

 

[flightschool]

If you model climate based on your best estimations of whatever climate scientists use to model climate, and you get a warming system, then what? Doesn't mean the model is broken, it just means under current conditions that's what the model predicts. This is sort of my point. If you are a proponent for a cooling climate, for instance, then either you need data that predicts a cooling climate with current models, or you need a way to explain how current conditions will add up to cooling.

If the models are wrong, and all the climate data and observations we've made so far are not an indication, and there really is no warming trend, then fantastic. But so far, the evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise.

I understand your point. The problem is the models haven't worked very well in the short term but they are probably built for more long term calibration since that is what concerns us the most... I have nothing more to add that will aid in the discussion. I'm not a scientist, just a casual and interested observer.

 

[MadMadWorld]

The "process of science" that I learned at university while getting my Bachelor of Science degree taught me that if your hypothesis is broken, it's time to either reevaluate your science or perhaps admit failure.

What it didn't teach me is to desperately cling to straws, fabricate data to support your hypothesis, hide data that contradicts your hypothesis, rejigger computer models, or move the goalposts for evaluation out at LEAST another 20 or 30 years to ensure that the government money train keeps on rolling into the station.

9/11 was an inside job! False flag!

 

[BenedictGomez]

Running the multiple scenarios with flawed climate models which has not predicted the pause is bad. Basing these scenario to dictate public policy is plain idiot.

It's WORSE than not "predicting the pause*", if you think the failure was in just not seeing a pause you need to go back and look at just how badly the Global Warming scientists computer models and predictions have failed up to this point.


*And "pause" is a humorous, unscientific term the AGM crowd uses, as it discounts any possibility that, although their science is ALREADY wrong as modeled and predicted, that ultimately it's even possible they will continue to be wrong. You know, there's really just a "pause" in terms of their being right!

No university teaches the process of science at the Bachelor level and it's barely done at all at the MSc level, as is painfully obvious from your arguments.

Right. And law schools dont teach law. And architecture degrees dont teach about buildings and construction.

It is mind boggling to me how anyone can come up with such a distorted view. What you are describing is indeed a worldwide conspiracy to defraud the government of taxpayer money.

Hardly. What I'm describing is various governments using the science to defraud the public and corporations out of tax dollars. If you dont believe this happens, then you probably also believe it was the tooth fairy that left those quarters under your pillow when you were a kid.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I understand your point. The problem is the models haven't worked very well in the short term but they are probably built for more long term calibration since that is what concerns us the most...

Nope.

Worse? The Global Warming scientists prediction of increasing CO2 levels was actually UNDERestimated.

CO2 levels have risen even worse than their dire predictions, partly fueled via unexpected economic increases in the developing world, and YET the world's warming didnt even remotely play out as their science suggested. Forget a "pause", the warming should have been even worse than what they predicted!

If you TRIED to be more wrong, it would probably be statistically unlikely.

9/11 was an inside job! False flag!

Then you have posts like this which demonstrate the individual doesnt even have a basic grasp of the issue or its' history.

 

[MadMadWorld]

I just want to know.....dinosaurs walked with humans....true or false?