The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[TheSkepticChristian]

Due to your accusations that I am a liar I will not be dialoging with you any more. 

 

CFR where did I say that?

I asked you that because you misrepresented what the videos presented. 

 

I am innocent until proven guilty.

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

If by "successfully explain" you mean failed models, then we agree. 

 

Many models are successful, but the evidence for GW does not come from models. Please do not ignore that the vast majority of climate researchers agree that GW theory is true because of the evidence, not because of assumptions, ambiguous observations, or popularity.

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

Don't take me seriously please

 

 

If you insist.

 

I guess I can't take you seriously when you ask me to take the vast majority of climate researchers seriously.

[pogi]

I did not mention Gore at all

 

Your precious videos did.  Whoever made that video obviously cannot decipher good reliable information from the crap. 

Edited April 16, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

If you insist.

 

I guess I can't take you seriously when you ask me to take the vast majority of climate researchers seriously.

 

It is wise to take the vast majority of climate researchers seriously. Do you have evidence that contradicts the consensus?

 

Btw, Richard Lindzen believes that smoking does not cause cancer.

 

 

Your precious videos did.  Whoever made that video obviously cannot decipher fact from fiction.

 

Thanks for watching it, but please contradict the video with evidence, not opinions.

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

Thanks for watching it, but please contradict the video with evidence, not opinions.

 

Did you see Gore and his bogus explenations in the video?  I did.  I will repeat again, they cannot decipher good reliable information from the crap.  If they fall for Gore's tricks, I cannot trust them as a reliable source of information. 

[thesometimesaint]

It is wise to take the vast majority of climate researchers seriously. Do you have evidence that contradicts the consensus?

 

Btw, Richard Lindzen believes that smoking does not cause cancer.

 

 

Thanks for watching it, but please contradict the video with evidence, not opinions.

There is a reason Moses waited 40 years in the wilderness.

[ERayR]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1/

 

From the article:

 

Because such conclusions are based on a scientist's professional judgment, disagreement is inevitable.

 

"There is enormous room for differences of opinion among equally competent scientists of good will," Rosenbaum concluded.

 

"There are always people -- and reasonable people -- who fall on both sides of the argument," agreed Abdalati. "And there are reasons for that. So the best we can hope for is a consensus."

Edited April 16, 2015 by ERayR

[pogi]

There is a reason Moses waited 40 years in the wilderness.

 

40 years is nothing compared to the time it has taken climatologist to create a reliable model...still waiting.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I did not mention Gore at all, and I think I agree with you on that.

Don't take me seriously please, take the vast majority of the climate researchers seriously.

 

 

 

Homer Simpson agrees with you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nyGqMAZYrA

Then you run into the problem of "it's not the message that is the issue but the messenger". I cannot take you serious. And so far all of the crap you have spewed has either skirted that larger issues or ignored them completely.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Did you see Gore and his bogus explenations in the video?  I did.  I will repeat again, they cannot decipher good reliable information from the crap.  If they fall for Gore's tricks, I cannot trust them as a reliable source of information. 

Such as "C02 increase drives temperature". With that hockey stick graph of his.

[thesometimesaint]

40 years is nothing compared to the time it has taken climatologist to create a reliable model...still waiting.

 

Heck we're still debating what gravity is after nearly 400 years. Now just jump off a high cliff so the angels will bear you up.

[TheSkepticChristian]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1/

 

From the article:

 

Because such conclusions are based on a scientist's professional judgment, disagreement is inevitable.

 

"There is enormous room for differences of opinion among equally competent scientists of good will," Rosenbaum concluded.

 

"There are always people -- and reasonable people -- who fall on both sides of the argument," agreed Abdalati. "And there are reasons for that. So the best we can hope for is a consensus."

 

Very true, climate researchers do disagree with each other on specific and complex issues, but they agree on the basics.  The Basics are that 1. Planet is getting warmer 2. Human activity is causing it 

 

 

Did you see Gore and his bogus explenations in the video?  I did.  I will repeat again, they cannot decipher good reliable information from the crap.  If they fall for Gore's tricks, I cannot trust them as a reliable source of information. 

 

Dude, the climate researchers are not interested in Gore, and the videos are not about Gore.  

Again, climate researchers agree with the basics 1) Earth is getting warmer 2) Human activity is causing it 3) One degree of global warming is significant 

 

So where is the evidence that contradicts the main arguments of the videos? 

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

Again, climate researchers agree with the basics 1) Earth is getting warmer 2) Human activity is causing it 3) One degree of global warming is significant 

 

Apparently you didn't read the article. 

[ERayR]

Apparently you didn't read the article. 

 

It certainly doesn't seem so. 

[pogi]

Dude, the climate researchers are not interested in Gore, and the videos are not about Gore.  

 

The video may not be about Gore, but the fact that the producer of the video used Gore's lies to prove a point demonstrates that the producer of the video is not competent and trustworthy as a reliable source of information.  How is that not obvious to you?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Again, climate researchers agree with the basics 1) Earth is getting warmer 2) Human activity is causing it 3) One degree of global warming is significant 

 

So where is the evidence that contradicts the main arguments of the videos? 

1. So far the Earth is not getting warmer. At least for the last 18 years.

 

 

2. That is debatable. .04% of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2. Can you quantify that if it doubled or tripled what that would do to the temps?Currently the increase (in CO2) seems to be about an increase of 20%? And for the 20th time CO2 does not seem to be a driver in temps. But an increase in temps seems to drive up CO2. You have to show that is not the case.

 

 

3. It is not one degree. The models predict a .6 degree increase over 100 years. And could you quantify "significant". And how would you prove that? A model? So far they have been colossally and spectacularly wrong .

Edited April 16, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[TheSkepticChristian]

1. So far the Earth is not getting warmer. At least for the last 18 years.

 

CFR

 

There is a speed bump for the surface temp, but the planet is still warming faster than ever. 

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

The video may not be about Gore, but the fact that the producer of the video used Gore's lies to prove a point demonstrates that the producer of the video is not competent and trustworthy as a reliable source of information.  How is that not obvious to you?

 

that guy said nothing about Gore, and I agree with Gore when he said that CO2 is causing temperatures to rise. It is also true that when CO2 levels (globally) are low, the planet is colder. When CO2 levels  (globally) are high, the planet is hotter. Even if the video has a mistake, it doesn't mean all of it is wrong. I am still waiting for you to contradict that video, can't find it in google? 

 

 

Apparently you didn't read the article. 

 

The author of that article Patrick L. Barry is not a climate researcher, and that article dates to the year 2000, science has advanced. 

What about  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position" 

 

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

Earth is getting warmer 2) Human activity is causing it  

 

To add to Mola's comments:

 

When you say human activity is causing "it", what do you mean?  Because you make it sound like humans are responsible for all of it.  How can you decide what part humans are responsible for and what part is related to natural variability?  Especially when scientists agree that "this natural variability often shows an astounding degree of complexity, much of which remains poorly understood (from ErayR's link)."

[pogi]

CFR

 

 

Look at your own chart!  From around 97-98 to today, temperatures have dropped slightly.

 

 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Especially when scientists agree that "this natural variability often shows an astounding degree of complexity, much of which remains poorly understood (from ErayR's link)."

 

again, the author Patrick L. Barry is not a climate researcher and that article dates to 2000. 

Let me quote the author of the paper you cited 

 

 

We can use the rest of the world to answer this question, and indeed we have done just that - temperature measurements from most of the globe do indeed show a man-made signal that rises easily above the natural background noise. This is especially robust in the deep ocean. So in sum, Greenland is a place that is kind of unique in the globe, in that it has an extraordinary amount of natural climate variability. But most of the globe is not that way.

Jeffrey P. Severinghaus

 

There is no evidence that there is another significant independent cause. Perhaps cows are contributing, but is small. 

Most of the planet is not like Greenland, and scientists use sophisticated methods to detect "man-made signal that rises easily above the natural background noise" 

 

So, CO2 is causing the planet to get warmer, a warmer planet causes more water vapor and warmer oceans, and warmer oceans will cause more CO2, and more CO2 will cause more warming. 

 

It is clear that cycles do not contribute to the modern warming 

 

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Look at your own chart!  From around 97-98 to today, temperatures have dropped slightly.

 

It is called a speed bump, it is not significant drop (if any, it is in the margin of error), speed bump for the surface temperatures, not the entire planet as a whole. 

 

Here is another graph, the surface is still warming, but again it has slowed down a little. 

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

Pogi my friend isn't there something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?  I'm out of here.

[pogi]

again, the author Patrick L. Barry is not a climate researcher and that article dates to 2000. 

Let me quote the author of the paper you cited 

 

 

There is no evidence that there is another significant independent cause. Perhaps cows are contributing, but is small. 

Most of the planet is not like Greenland, and scientists use sophisticated methods to detect "man-made signal that rises easily above the natural background noise" 

 

So, CO2 is causing the planet to get warmer, a warmer planet causes more water vapor and warmer oceans, and warmer oceans will cause more CO2, and more CO2 will cause more warming. 

 

It is clear that cycles do not contribute to the warming 

 

The producer of your videos are not climate researchers either, so don't make us live up to a standard that you have consistently violated yourself throughout this thread.  

 

His opinion is based on faulty and imperfect models, not based on falsifiable scientific tests.  There is no way to demonstrate that those models are accurate.  

 

"Why is the question so thorny? The reason, say experts, is that Earth's climate is complex and chaotic. It's so unwieldy that researchers simply can't conduct experiments to check their ideas in the usual way of science. They often rely, instead, on computer models. But such models are only as good as their inputs and programming, and today's computer models are known to be imperfect."

 

"And so you have all these processes mixed together that have been going on for thousands of years, and you're in the difficult position of trying to separate something very recent from the natural cycle without fully understanding what that natural cycle is,"