Stop the "Climate Change is Real" brow beating

Why sure. That's so easy to express, and then the beauty of it is that you never actually have to prove anything. It's the ultimate scam. Pandering doesn't suit you , either. And for the briefest of moments, I actually thought that one of you might actually have the gumption to express a quantifiable assertion. Of course, you won't. Why would you? All "intelligent" folks would simply accept the premise, right? It's laughable. Tell you what. If you ever get out into the real economy, try your method, and see how far you get.

 

drluggit:


JDLiberal criticized you for believing "...Models are not facts...".

You are right and he is wrong.

"Models" are at best estimates and more probably guesstimates. They are not facts.

 

Infrared radiation is photons, i.e. energy. Just like the photons we get from the sun. When that energy is absorbed it increases the energy of whatever absorbed it.

SO WHAT? Heat is not temperature.

A pint of boiling water and a gallon of boiling water have the same temperature but the amount of heat associated with each is different.

You can measure temperature. You can't directly measure heat.

So, again, you still haven't defined what you mean by "warmer". Are you speaking of temperatures or of the mean of several measurements?

Because it is not obvious that temperatures are increasing, only the mean. And the models only tell us differentials, not actual temperatures. Without the actual temperatures there is no way to understand what the mean is telling us!

So, again, what does "warmer" mean to *you*?

 

Yes, but models are basis for all of our facts. As I explained, every measurement we make is based on model. Those satellite measurements of temperature is based on a model. The historical trends of temperature is a model. They all use average temperature over a certain time. Even your trust Mercury thermometer is a model of temperature. It has biases, inaccuracies, and noise in it's measurements. These are accounted for based on a model to enable us to use it to measure temperature. How hard is this to understand?

 

Then you should have no excuse for not knowing the perverse incentives and problems with the pressure to submit papers.

 

Observed science vs modeled science. There is a difference. Observed science is based on actual observed phenomenon. Modeled science is based on hypothesis, especially in climate science.

 

Yes, I have posted many times here there are problems with the peer review process, but these problems do not invalidate the work being done. The majority of science is a living body of work. There are checks and balances, but also flaws; however, the common criticisms found on these forms are not accurate and are usually based on a misunderstanding of how science is conducted.

 

Please cite your basis for this distinction. All observations are based on model. Any measurement is a model. As I described, every measurement of temperature is based on model. Your observed science is based models. Additionally, all science is based on hypothesis testing. So saying it is based on hypothesis is not a criticism.

P.S. If we want to get a bit technical, even our own perceptions are based on model of noisy sensory data from our sensory organs. It is highly processed data and altered by multiple brain regions before we experience it. It is not just raw observation.

 

I read the article and it brings up possible biases in the way temperature is averaged and the spatial effects of those biases, but it does not address your troposphere measurements. These adjustment suggestions were for surface temperatures.

 

Did you not read what I wrote? The answer should already be apparent in what I said.

Read what I wrote and perhaps you wouldn't find yourself in need of such strawmen.

 

Well, there are known problems in peer review of which most is written about medical papers but many of the same problems exist in climate papers. Outside of actual papers there are many claims based on the papers in media that are never claimed in the paper itself and often hyped with little background misrepresenting the actual paper to make it sound much more ominous. Besides that, climate science is a relatively immature science with many known unknowns and unknown unknowns. A great example are the claims about the Great Barrier Reef. Actual review of the whole Reef has been recent and spartan. Recent discoveries find that when one coral organism died off another takes it's place. Climate change is actually at the bottom of the list of coral damage. The top being physical damage, agricultural drainage, and even sunscreen. If you listen to the media and alarmists only climate change is the problem.

 

Well, medical articles that focus on patient populations have their own set of problems. These types of studies are not able to be as tightly controlled due to certain biases and a less random sampling procedure, but they are still important and are good if the limitations are clearly stated.

Caution should be taken, when listening to or reading about science articles that are presented by non-scientists. Usually these explanations are using a lay language. These explanations are often imprecise. Scientific writing is very rigid and bland because of the amount of precision that is desired. This precision is often lost in media coverage. Never judge science by media coverage. Always read the publication before passing judgment.

A quick rule of thumb for assessing the validity of an article is to see which journal it is from. Nature, science, PNAS (proceedings of the national academy of the sciences), JAMA (journal of American medical association) and new England journal of medicine are all well respected and rigorously reviewed. Articles from those journals should be trusted. They are not infallible, but are top journals. There are plenty more journals that each field has high regard for.

 

The point of publishing includes the full data so others can review and try and duplicate to verify or falsify. The climategate emails provided an insight to the shenanigans used by certain scientists to squash peer review of papers that were inconvenient to the narrative and the attempt to hide the underlying data for fear of their own content being falsified. A great example of that is Mann's hockeystick. Refusal to release all the data for his conclusion to finding out the miriad of problems once the information was mined serreptitiously at great protest.

 

I apparently have more things going on in life than you do, as I do not have time to follow up on all the threads on a given topic that you do.

idk why you guys insist on breaking discussions up into "sides" like we're on teams, but let's run with that thinking - what, in the exchange of ideas, is more damaging to your side: the opposition making some bad points and asking questions because they don't understand what you're talking about, or your own side making bad points and childishly berating and insulting people they disagree with, while also petulantly whining about less than one in eight people disagreeing with your side on the fundamental core points?

To put the analogy in a war scenario: I'm more concerned about having bumbling idiots ****ing **** up on my own side than I am about the bumbling idiots on the enemy side doing damage to our cause. Now again, I don't see this in a "sides" or "team" framework like so many ppl here seem to, but trying to put it in a way that you'll get if you do.

 

No, it is about discussing the subject - something you apparently didn't comprehend.

 

I don't know. Why are you childishly berating and insulting people when your own actions don't comport with your argument?

 

lol, if you're just interested in making **** up and ignoring substance like that, have a nice day. I've got better things to do with my time.

 

Not at all. In you OP you childishly berate and insult people for defending science against the global warming deniers, because you claim its a non-issue, while in the very threads in this forum where people are denying global warming, you're a no-show.

Instead of attacking people defending science in the global warming debate, et on those global warming denier threads, and tell those idiots how wrong they are, instead of childishly berating and insulting people who are defending the very thing you claim is settled.

Update:
In fact, I came across another thread right now where some nut is denying global warming:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ped-a-bomb-on-key-climate-change-data.509557/

Instead of childishly berating and insulting those defending the truth, where are you on that thread tell the OP what an idiot he is for attacking something that you claim is not even an issue?

 

Nope, never once did that. Also, like I said, my time is too valuable to waste with petulance. You've clearly shown that you have little interest in substantive discussion of the point and prefer trolling. Have a nice day.

 

"This moronic brow beating that "climate change is real" doesn't accomplish anything but petulant virtue signaling."

I guess you were just trolling. Have a nice day.

 

Still at it?

Haha, anyone who knows what the word means can clearly see how you're trolling. It's petulant and silly. But you do you.

 

Back to childishly berating and insulting people, are we?

Have fun trolling.

 

LOL

 

And yet when people try to do those things you say are so supported, GOP representatives and senators stop said legislation. Obviously, despite what the people of the US want, the money backing energy is refusing to budge.

 

People, especially poor people, don't want to pay through the nose for something pushed by alarmist environmentalists.