The Science is Settled

[GilpinGuy]

This made me LMAO this morning. [ROFL1]

Saudi Cleric Argues That the Sun Revolves Around the Earth

(http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/17/saudi-cleric-argues-that-the-sun-revolves-around-earth-because-airplanes/)A Saudi cleric has publicly claimed that the Earth is a static object which is orbited by the sun, adding that centuries of evidence to the contrary is little more than fabrication.

Sheikh Bandar al-Khaibari is believed to have been speaking at a university lecture in the United Arab Emirates when a student asked him whether the Earth rotates or is stationary.

The Islamic scholar quickly replies ‘stationary and does not move’, before launching into a long-winded and confusing explanation that appears to the suggest that if the Earth was moving, airliners would never be able to reach their destination.

On concluding his baffling explanation, Sheikh al-Khaibari went on to claim the NASA lunar mission was Hollywood fabrication and that humans have never been to the moon, according to Al Arabiya.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HLfwudUJqCk

[Singlestack]

Nice to see the flat earth society is all well and good. Hadn't heard from them for awhile.

[BPTactical]

Well, I'm glad we got that figgered out..............[facepalm]

[sniper7]

I'm officially selling my boat...ain't no way I'm falling off the edge.

[buckshotbarlow]

i'm gonna tell my boss i can't fly anymore...I might fly off the edge!

[beast556]

It's about time this finally got straighten out. I was wondering why all those times I tryed to fly to china I never made it.
[Whacko]

[TFOGGER]

You know, at one time the Arabs were the pinnacle of scientific knowledge and discovery. Unfortunately, that was about a thousand years ago, and they apparently have not progressed since.

[SAPenguin]

We laugh at this guy, but how many "climate change deniers" do we have in our own country? That science is settled too.

[Irving]

Looks like he is out of Mortal Kombat.

[Aloha_Shooter]

We laugh at this guy, but how many "climate change deniers" do we have in our own country? That science is settled too.

There's a difference. We have actual measured data showing the effects of gravity and interplanetary space. We have pictures and live video proving the Copernican hypothesis. The global warming alarmists have model results which contradict with measured data, "settled science" papers with "peer review" which violate nearly every standard I grew up with (including deliberately cherry-picked data, charts flipped upside-down to fit the story, and collusion to fix the peer review and block any critical examination or opposing papers), and a set of defenders talking about "science" who couldn't pass high school physics.

[roberth]

There's a difference. We have actual measured data showing the effects of gravity and interplanetary space. We have pictures and live video proving the Copernican hypothesis. The global warming alarmists have model results which contradict with measured data, "settled science" papers with "peer review" which violate nearly every standard I grew up with (including deliberately cherry-picked data, charts flipped upside-down to fit the story, and collusion to fix the peer review and block any critical examination or opposing papers), and a set of defenders talking about "science" who couldn't pass high school physics.

The difference is ENORMOUS...boils down to true facts of the Copernican hypothesis versus false climate change data manufactured out of thin air to meet a predetermined conclusion.

[thvigil11]

Dirka Dirka Muhammed Jihad! [gihad]

[TFOGGER]

The difference is ENORMOUS...boils down to true facts of the Copernican hypothesis versus false climate change data manufactured out of thin air to meet a predetermined conclusion.

Hmmm... this jewel just came up in my news feed...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/13/dana-perino/fox-news-host-climate-scientists-fabricated-temper/


The U.S. Senate may have voted 98-1 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/21/senate-climate-change-votes/22120041/) that "climate change is real and not a hoax," but the accusation that government scientists have cooked the books and invented a warming trend is as robust as ever.Fox News host Dana Perino joined several of her colleagues this week in casting doubt on the data scientists use to track temperature changes over time. Perino’s comments came on Feb. 9, 2015, as she and her co-hosts on The Five somewhat sarcasticallydiscussed how the fight against Islamic State or ISIS drew attention away from other issues, such as climate change.
"They're (the White House) actually kind of lucky that we don't cover climate change as much as we should," Perino said. "Because yesterday, it was reported that the temperature readings have been fabricated and it's all blowing up in their faces."

[HoneyBadger]

It's about time this finally got straighten out. I was wondering why all those times I tryed to fly to china I never made it.
[Whacko]

Does this answer the question of the Malaysian Airlines missing flight?

[HoneyBadger]

We laugh at this guy, but how many "climate change deniers" do we have in our own country? That science is settled too.

I'm sorry, what?

The science is settled. And the politics. It is a bunch of bullshit. That's why they had to change the name from "global warming" to "climate change". NOBODY can deny that the climate is changing. We've proven with boatloads of empirical evidence that the climate changes over time (Ever heard of an Ice age?). Now it's not even about science anymore. It's about politics and extortion.

Back on topic, TFOGGER nailed it: "You know, at one time the Arabs were the pinnacle of scientific knowledge and discovery. Unfortunately, that was about a thousand years ago, and they apparently have not progressed since."

[Ranger353]

... Now it's not even about science anymore. It's about politics and extortion.
And don't forget those carbon credits. [Sarcasm2]

[Ah Pook]

I'm glad some real science has been applied to solve this, with ground breaking results.

Is the theory of evolution next on his list?

[Irving]

Reminds me of Guam capsizing into the ocean.

[roberth]

Hmmm... this jewel just came up in my news feed...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/13/dana-perino/fox-news-host-climate-scientists-fabricated-temper/

Additionally, some of the instruments used to log measurements were ill-placed.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/


But there's a problem: Nearly every single weather station the U.S. government uses to measure the country's surface temperature may be compromised. Sensors that are supposed to be in empty clearings are instead exposed to crackling electronics and other unlikely sources of heat, from exhaust pipes and trash-burning barrels to chimneys and human graves.

Communists (liberals, progressives, democrats) will go to any length to debase the truth and fabricate a story to steal money from and gain power over the citizenry. The ends justify the means in their malignant view.

[BUC303]

We laugh at this guy, but how many "climate change deniers" do we have in our own country? That science is settled too.

This made me LMAO this morning[ROFL1]

[Irving]

Just watched the video. This guy definitely fails the Can an Airplane Take Off From a Treadmill challenge.

[SAPenguin]

Not wanting to fan the flames further, but you guys did read the ENTIRE article posted by TROGGER above, right?
Where in the concluding paragraphs it rates the FOX anchors, along with claims of manipulated data as being... "pants on fire".

[Aloha_Shooter]

Not wanting to fan the flames further, but you guys did read the ENTIRE article posted by TROGGER above, right?
Where in the concluding paragraphs it rates the FOX anchors, along with claims of manipulated data as being... "pants on fire".

Hadn't bothered because politifact is anything but facts. Climate Audit has been raising the thorny issues of how Mann and company have manipulated the data for years including showing just how to replicate the results Mann published (since he won't provide the source code or data despite being required to do so when he accepted federal funding) and the gyrations you have to go through in order to replicate his results (or not ... in some cases, you can get Mann's hockey stick by feeding pink noise into what code he has published).

Consensus the Earth's median temperature has increased in the past 100 years? Easy to get since we had the Little Ice Age a bit over 100 years ago and measuring from a local minima gets you ... surprise, surprise ... a positive slope! Let's hear it for middle high school geometry! Now, measure back 1000 years to when they were growing grapes for vineyards in Greenland and England and you get ... oh gee, sorry about that, pre-Industrial Age temperatures were warmer. Like I said, deliberately cherry-picked data. If I'd done what Mann has done in his papers, I'd rightfully have been flunked out of my classes if not tossed out of school altogether.

[SAPenguin]

Well, seeing as though the word "Science" is used so much in this debate, I'll leave you with some words from the most respected SCIENTIST and probably the most brilliant minded person on our little planet today...

56585

and
56587


and a little video for good measure:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Sa52DpMCs

[TFOGGER]

The question in my mind is not if the climate is changing, as it clearly is. The question, to me, is "Is this being accelerated by humans, and to what extent?" Given historical data (90% of North America being covered by more than 100 feet of ice ~30K years ago, but being tropical roughly 30K years before that), I gotta say that our impact is minimal at best. Does this mean that conserving resources and being good stewards of the land is bad? Absolutely not. But panicking and saying "We MUST DO SOMETHING!!!!" is bullshit. Manipulating the peasants through fear is one of the oldest tactics in the Book of Tyranny.

[TFOGGER]

Tyson is an unabashed liberal, and has been found on many occasions to have "misstated" things as scientific fact, when in reality they are no such thing.

[SAPenguin]

The beauty of this country is that we are all free to believe whatever we want. I love it. I'm not going to sway anyone's mind with cute pictures or video, so please accept the following as my own musings... I do have a sneaky suspicion that 2, 5 or maybe 10 years from now, armed with even more irrefutable scientific evidence, we will look back at this "debate" over climate change and laugh at ourselves, and wonder why we did not listen to the really smart guys in the room. Just like looking back at the THEORY of evolution, or the THEORY of gravity, neither of which are THEORY anymore. I simply wish that politics and religion were kept away from science.

[davsel]

Well, seeing as though the word "Science" is used so much in this debate, I'll leave you with some words from the most respected SCIENTIST and probably the most brilliant minded person on our little planet today...

56585

and
56587


and a little video for good measure:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Sa52DpMCs


The beauty of this country is that we are all free to believe whatever we want. I love it. I'm not going to sway anyone's mind with cute pictures or video, so please accept the following as my own musings... I do have a sneaky suspicion that 2, 5 or maybe 10 years from now, armed with even more irrefutable scientific evidence, we will look back at this "debate" over climate change and laugh at ourselves, and wonder why we did not listen to the really smart guys in the room. Just like looking back at the THEORY of evolution, or the THEORY of gravity, neither of which are THEORY anymore. I simply wish that politics and religion were kept away from science.

Quoting a Progressive Moonbat who happens to have a PhD, wins no points in a debate.
Following it up with "evolution" seals the deal.

There are at least two sides to the arguments mentioned. I would spend equal time extensively researching all sides before taking a stand.

[RblDiver]

The question in my mind is not if the climate is changing, as it clearly is. The question, to me, is "Is this being accelerated by humans, and to what extent?" Given historical data (90% of North America being covered by more than 100 feet of ice ~30K years ago, but being tropical roughly 30K years before that), I gotta say that our impact is minimal at best. Does this mean that conserving resources and being good stewards of the land is bad? Absolutely not. But panicking and saying "We MUST DO SOMETHING!!!!" is bullshit. Manipulating the peasants through fear is one of the oldest tactics in the Book of Tyranny.

+1

Also, I'm curious whether or not many of the models (none which seem to hold up to reality, funny that) take into account shifting microclimates around the weather stations themselves. I remember about 12 years or so ago when my high school class visited the CSU weather station, one of the grad students was researching this phenomenon. Transfort (the local bus system) had recently built a new terminal about 200 feet away from this station, which had historically been giving pretty consistent results, but lately it had been showing marked heat increases (likely due to the large amount of new hot asphalt in the area, etc).

Oh, and the fact that some scientists have deliberately falsified data....yeah, don't think I can trust them.

After all, remember that at one point in time, The Science Was Settled™ that the Earth was flat.

[HoneyBadger]

The beauty of this country is that we are all free to believe whatever we want. I love it. I'm not going to sway anyone's mind with cute pictures or video, so please accept the following as my own musings... I do have a sneaky suspicion that 2, 5 or maybe 10 years from now, armed with even more irrefutable scientific evidence, we will look back at this "debate" over climate change and laugh at ourselves, and wonder why we did not listen to the really smart guys in the room. Just like looking back at the THEORY of evolution, or the THEORY of gravity, neither of which are THEORY anymore. I simply wish that politics and religion were kept away from science.

Al Gore has admitted several times that he faked the data in his global warming flick, and he made $$$$ from it. Do you not pay any attention to the news? It was all over every major site just last week that all the data was either manipulated, or incorrectly gathered.

First, evil humans were causing the earth to heat up so much that the ice caps would be totally melted by 2015 (oh no!), then they changed the name to "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the data clearly didn't match their agenda, and just last month, I read an article in Scientific American proposing that we evil humans are actually causing global cooling! [facepalm]

[Irving]

I don't know that I'd call DeGrasse Tyson a moonbat.

[Irving]

The question in my mind is not if the climate is changing, as it clearly is. The question, to me, is "Is this being accelerated by humans, and to what extent?" Given historical data (90% of North America being covered by more than 100 feet of ice ~30K years ago, but being tropical roughly 30K years before that), I gotta say that our impact is minimal at best.

While I am in agreement with you, I think that people who are skeptical of the climate change predictive models need a better argument than the above mentioned. A dam builder can point to the historical movement of a river, just as a lumberjack can point out how the tree he is cutting down might not have even been around 200 years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that damming a river or cutting down a tree are having a dramatic effect.

[BUC303]

I don't know that I'd call DeGrasse Tyson a moonbat.

I Agree, but I damn sure wouldn't call him " the most respected SCIENTIST and probably the most brilliant minded person on our little planet today..."

[davsel]

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1707464!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/selfie2n-1-web.jpg

[davsel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQoLbPudHTE

[Duman]

Reminds me of Guam capsizing into the ocean.

I remember listening to that conversation.....IIRC, it was a congressman asking an admiral about the impact of landing ships on Guam. It left me speechless.

I remember in the 70's, the climate scientists were alarming the world with "the earth is cooling, the earth is coolig!".
Watching these science shows, they think ~500m years ago the atmosphere was toxic, full of toxic and acidic gases. About every 2m years, or so, the magnetic poles flip, at which point we have limited protection from space radiation and mass extinctions were likely. There is evidence that at one time the entire planet was covered with ice, not simply an ice age. Volcanos spew billions of tons of crud in the atmosphere every year. We banned CFCs and the holes in the ozone are as big as ever.

The list goes on....when Yellowstone erupts, I'll gab a lawn chair and a beer.

[Jamnanc]

Some say the end is near, some say we'll see Armageddon soon. I certainly hope we will....... Learn to swim.

[Singlestack]

Climate alarmism has been debunked as 100% politics and junk science. Can we move on, finally?

[BUC303]

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1707464!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/selfie2n-1-web.jpg


Wait...are you saying that the two biggest names in the "Scientific community" who are championing climate change are outspoken liberals? So much for the wish "that politics and religion were kept away from science."

[SAPenguin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQoLbPudHTE

Davsel, I'm a little confused... I thought you were arguing against me, but your video shows exactly my point (i.e. religion interfering with science) by the same guy (Degrasse) whom I previously referenced...

[SAPenguin]

Some say the end is near, some say we'll see Armageddon soon. I certainly hope we will....... Learn to swim.

LOL, maybe we will all have ocean front property here in Colorado [Beer] great for property values... [Coffee]

[TFOGGER]

LOL, maybe we will all have ocean front property here in Colorado [Beer] great for property values... [Coffee]

This was all ocean BOTTOM property ~120 million years ago...[ROFL1]

[davsel]

Davsel, I'm a little confused... I thought you were arguing against me, but your video shows exactly my point (i.e. religion interfering with science) by the same guy (Degrasse) whom I previously referenced...

Oh, I see now, you thought I believed what he said in the video.
No, I was posting the video as another example of his Moonbattery.
Sorry for the confusion.

[roberth]

This was all ocean BOTTOM property ~120 million years ago...[ROFL1]

and for all we know it'll the sea bottom again in another 120 million years.

[SAPenguin]

and for all we know it'll the sea bottom again in another 120 million years.

Glad to see you are coming around to our line of thinking (I kid!)

[SAPenguin]

Oh, I see now, you thought I believed what he said in the video.
No, I was posting the video as another example of his Moonbattery.
Sorry for the confusion.
No problem, I get it now...
I guess our opinions on Degasse are just worlds apart - and that's OK, its what makes this place interesting... I happen to really like the guy and I think he speaks truth, and can back up everything he says with evidence. Just my opinion on the dude.

[roberth]

Glad to see you are coming around to our line of thinking (I kid!)

LOL :)

Climate change is real, climate change caused by man is a massive fraud.

As to what some idiotic Iman thinks about a stationary earth, I think he is suffering from heatstroke, a JDAM will correct his problem.

[jerrymrc]

And I thought Detroit had bad schools.[Flower] I too remember all the alarmist "ice age" talk in the 70's [beatdeadhorse]

[roberth]

And I thought Detroit had bad schools.[Flower] I too remember all the alarmist "ice age" talk in the 70's [beatdeadhorse]

Yeah, I remember that bunch of hooey too.

[GilpinGuy]

We have a new Nyco.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I would not call deGrasse Tyson a moonbat but neither is he the most respected scientist of our time. The most well-known and popular, probably, but I'd certainly rank Freeman Dyson up past DeGrasse Tyson and in this field, Richard Lindzen certainly has looked at the data more. The biggest argument against the climate predictive models is that NONE of them predicted the past 16 years of warming pause. NONE. Hell, they can't even back-predict the past correctly. Take a careful look at where alarmists draw their cut-lines and ask yourself why they select the data spans they do. I'm sure it's just coincidence that the alarmists like to use the 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age.

Personally, I'm in the Lukewarm camp: intuitively there has to be an effect from this many humans and the changes they've made to the surface of the Earth but the data and physics do NOT support the lies promulgated by the likes of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, etc. nor do the proposed "carbon control" measures make sense. I heard Bill Nye speak at the Space Symposium dinner several years ago and it was the first such time I've been tempted to walk out. I used to respect him for his science education efforts until I heard his wigged out garbage.

Carbon comes into play because carbon dioxide is known to reflect infrared photons (heat). (Water vapor is even better than CO2 at this but we'll leave that alone for now.) These photons are created when black bodies like asphalt absorb visible spectrum light and reradiate that energy as infrared. Want to adjust the heat equation of the planet in a quicker, cheaper, and more easily adjustable way than "carbon sequestration"? Change the albedo (shininess) of the planet. Quit using dark asphalt and roof tar, use lighter materials or covers so more of the visible light is reflected back into space as ... visible light. White (or grass) roofs could do a lot of this. If you overshoot the mark and fear entering another (overdue) Ice Age, you can shift back to darker materials to absorb more of that solar energy as thermal energy.

The only reason for "carbon control" is it is a backdoor for economic control. Now why would economic control be of concern to avowed Leftists? [facepalm]

[Aloha_Shooter]

Haven't been to Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org/) in a while but just happened to see the article on two new proxies found and they have some excellent graphs to illustrate my point about picking timespans.

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/alkenone_sicre_2014_noamer_east3.png?w=660&h=513

Notice the tail? If you go back just 100 years, you find a very positive slope but go back 500 or 1000 years and it's a very different story.

Want more data points than sediments in Newfoundland? Here's another:

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/alkenone_noamer_east_vs_marcott1.png?w=840&h=560

For a more detailed explanation, read the article at http://climateaudit.org/2015/01/21/important-new-north-american-east-coast-proxy-data/#more-20559 as I'm just diving into it and can't do it justice at the moment.

[Big E3]

I blame it all on the cave man for building camp fires. All that CO2 in the air melted the polar ice caps covering North American, the ones that were a mile thick and formed the great lakes. All that ice, it was like heaven on earth, stupid cave man. Just think we could still have nothing growing on North America and we could just ride snow mobiles everywhere. That would be the life.







[Sarcasm2]

[Bailey Guns]

I've heard liberals say Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman in the world. I've heard liberals say Barrack Obama is a brilliant man. Now a liberal on a gun forum is trying to convince me the science is settled on man-caused climate change because the "smartest" scientist in the world, a liberal, says so.

Sorry, new guy. You're gonna have to do better than that. There are some pretty smart, and real, scientists who don't buy into the hoax that is the liberal religion of man-made global warming (some of whom are even lefties themselves) and would tell you you're full of shit...just like Clinton and Obama.

[SAPenguin]

This will be my last posting on the topic, as I fear that if we continue down this path the thread may get nasty with name calling, as it is starting above... [shithitsfan]
(I must say it's actually been quite mature and grown up, so far... can we give ourselves a pat on the back?) [Beer]

My parting thoughts (my thoughts alone): The more we shun science, the more we denigrate those who try to open our eyes to new things and new ideas, the more we resemble that fool in the very first video of this tread. Lets not be like him.

Have a good day, everyone. Tomorrow is FRIDAY! :)

[Jer]

I've been saying for years now that they were centuries behind the rest of the world.















....I obviously over estimated them.

[Bailey Guns]

This will be my last posting on the topic, as I fear that if we continue down this path the thread may get nasty with name calling, as it is starting above... [shithitsfan]
(I must say it's actually been quite mature and grown up, so far... can we give ourselves a pat on the back?) [Beer]

My parting thoughts (my thoughts alone): The more we shun science, the more we denigrate those who try to open our eyes to new things and new ideas, the more we resemble that fool in the very first video of this tread. Lets not be like him.

Have a good day, everyone. Tomorrow is FRIDAY! :)

No need to shun science. But one person's opinion doesn't equate to science. If you're gonna play the science card then at least be honest and admit that it isn't settled by any stretch of the imagination and that there is no consensus among scientists. There are many on both sides of the issue.

And before you accuse others of name calling maybe take a look at your very first post in this thread:


We laugh at this guy, but how many "climate change deniers" do we have in our own country?

Or was "climate change deniers" a term or endearment and not meant to be derogatory to those who don't buy into the hoax?

Yeah...thought so.

[roberth]

This will be my last posting on the topic, as I fear that if we continue down this path the thread may get nasty with name calling, as it is starting above... [shithitsfan]
(I must say it's actually been quite mature and grown up, so far... can we give ourselves a pat on the back?) [Beer]

My parting thoughts (my thoughts alone): The more we shun science, the more we denigrate those who try to open our eyes to new things and new ideas, the more we resemble that fool in the very first video of this tread. Lets not be like him.

Have a good day, everyone. Tomorrow is FRIDAY! :)

Yeah right, we'll see.

You started it, you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO TRUE facts to back your position so you're abandoning the discussion. Typical liberal, welcome to my ignore list.

[HoneyBadger]

This will be my last posting on the topic, as I fear that if we continue down this path the thread may get nasty with name calling, as it is starting above... [shithitsfan]
(I must say it's actually been quite mature and grown up, so far... can we give ourselves a pat on the back?) [Beer]

My parting thoughts (my thoughts alone): The more we shun science, the more we denigrate those who try to open our eyes to new things and new ideas, the more we resemble that fool in the very first video of this tread. Lets not be like him.

Have a good day, everyone. Tomorrow is FRIDAY! :)

Nobody here is shunning science WRT the "climate change" discussion. There is a lot of very conflicted data, and many of the political platforms surrounding climate change were/are based on faulty data and abusive data trimming (only quoting the stats that support your argument, while ignoring stats in the same set of data that do not). I think the only one in this thread that is shunning science is the guy in the original video [LOL]

[Ranger353]

Suggestion from the peanut gallery: Never begin a "discussion" with a poke in the eye to someone else, they will probably poke back with a stick. Just a thought.

[Irving]

SAPenguin, the issue many people have with the climate change debate is that the entire issue is based on projection models that are attempting to predict future outcomes based on historical data. This is the modern version of the study that shows that we will run out of oil in 5-10 years. Those studies started coming out in the 1970's and it hasn't happened yet. The reason being is in order to achieve a "run out" date, you need to measure current consumption, perhaps even consider an increase in consumption each year, but you need to discount the discovery of new oil, and new techniques to visit old wells. So given those parameters, then of course it looks like we'd be looming over the edge. Realistically, there ARE new oil discoveries and even more importantly, technological advances that allow greater levels of oil recovery from old wells. At the time I was in college, the figure was something like 80% of new oil production each year actually came from using better technology on established wells.

Okay, now that is out of the way, let's go back to this model prediction issue. With model prediction, all the variables are up to the model builder. There is a clear narrative in some circles of climate science, as we can see demonstrated by ideas like carbon credits. Once political figures discover that economic controls can be leveraged against society under the guise of protecting everyone from themselves, coupled with a scientific community that has learned that if something is not an emergency, then it won't get funded, then we start to develop a narrative that may be considered to be disingenuous.

So, with all of that said, we must revisit the predictive models once again. When someone says the science is settled, the only thing that is really settled is the recording of past data. What the future holds is certainly NOT settled, in any way. Just as you can run a program to predict future commodity prices, or future housing prices, you can manipulate your model parameters to favor whichever outcome you prefer. Either way, as we have been shown with housing bubbles and our current low oil prices, the models don't work as well as we'd like. Essentially, climate science could more accurately be described as climate economics; and as you may already know, there have been at least two sides of the economic debate for as long as there have been economics.

The most unfortunate part of the climate debate, is that I don't believe people would be so angry about anything, and more open to discussion, if political narrative and chicken little hysterics were not driving everything. It is one thing to suggest a change, and another to force one.

With that, I leave everyone with two entertaining pieces of media.

First is a portion of a TED talk by Allan Savory about a time when he was wrong, dead wrong, about grassland turning into desert. You can watch the longer video if you want, but the 10 minute audio is enough. I encourage everyone to listen, because his story may be an account of one of the most severe f*ck-ups I've ever heard. It's worth the listen.
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/15/243721657/how-can-deserts-turn-into-grasslands

Second, we have a projected rap battle between two famous economists based on our historical data of their beliefs. Could anyone even be considered an "economics denier?" Enjoy.

d0nERTFo-Sk

[SamuraiCO]

Interesting that "settled science" does not accept a scientific solution to the "problem" of CO2 warming up the planet. I posted before of the think tank in Seattle that was prominent in the last Freakonomics book. Their solution was to mimic a force of nature that with out a doubt cools the planet....volcanic eruptions. It is sulfur dioxide in the high atmosphere that does it every time there is volcanic activity. Their solution if the "climate change" models do come true and we start an uncontrollable atmospheric nightmare with increased temperatures costs around......$80 million with a $10-20 million a year investment to pump the gas and cool off our planet.

That's it. No $trillions of dollars needed and fundamental change in our current power production or needs. We can ill afford it now or in the short term future. Will there be some breakthrough energy source other than the most efficient solar model of burning of fossil fuels in our lifetime....maybe. But it has to be the same or cost less to make any sense at this time in our lifetime.

The national debt will ruin our country and the world economies well before any models of climate change will.

[68Charger]

Interesting that "settled science" does not accept a scientific solution to the "problem" of CO2 warming up the planet. I posted before of the think tank in Seattle that was prominent in the last Freakonomics book. Their solution was to mimic a force of nature that with out a doubt cools the planet....volcanic eruptions. It is sulfur dioxide in the high atmosphere that does it every time there is volcanic activity. Their solution if the "climate change" models do come true and we start an uncontrollable atmospheric nightmare with increased temperatures costs around......$80 million with a $10-20 million a year investment to pump the gas and cool off our planet.

That's it. No $trillions of dollars needed and fundamental change in our current power production or needs. We can ill afford it now or in the short term future. Will there be some breakthrough energy source other than the most efficient solar model of burning of fossil fuels in our lifetime....maybe. But it has to be the same or cost less to make any sense at this time in our lifetime.

The national debt will ruin our country and the world economies well before any models of climate change will.

The EPA would undoubtedly block this plan, since it would lead to acid rain... [gohome]

[Justin]

ndt isn't the smartest scientist. What he is, is a scientist who is personable enough to be able to present scientific ideas and concepts in a way that makes them accessible to the general public.

[Zundfolge]

ndt isn't the smartest scientist. What he is, is a scientist who is personable enough to be able to present scientific ideas and concepts in a way that makes them accessible to the general public.

He's also black so he soothes the white guilt of liberals.

[davsel]

ndt isn't the smartest scientist. What he is, is a scientist who is personable enough to be able to spin scientific hoaxes and power grabs in a way that makes them believable to the ignorant public.
FIFY

[roberth]

ndt isn't the smartest scientist. What he is, is a scientist who is personable enough to be able to spin scientific hoaxes and power grabs in a way that makes them believable to the ignorant public.

FIFY

Excellent and faultless.

[SamuraiCO]

The EPA would undoubtedly block this plan, since it would lead to acid rain... [gohome]


Nope is put higher into the atmosphere...no acid rain.

[Aloha_Shooter]

ndt isn't the smartest scientist. What he is, is a scientist who is personable enough to be able to present scientific ideas and concepts in a way that makes them accessible to the general public.

Yep.


He's also black so he soothes the white guilt of liberals.

I really don't think that's a major factor. NDT is an excellent scientist in his own right, I just don't think you could call him the preeminent scientist of our time. Like Carl Sagan, he communicates well but he also sometimes lets his ideology outweigh his science.


FIFY

Sorry, no, he doesn't spin scientific hoaxes. He communicates actual science in a way the general public can grasp. That kind of talent is what made Cosmos and Connections such great shows. In this case, I think he has let his general ideology overwhelm his science but he is most assuredly not intentionally spinning hoaxes the way some of the climatologists have.


Nope is put higher into the atmosphere...no acid rain.

SamuraiCO is correct here. The plan would put the sulfur up where it would reflect some of the solar energy but 68Charger is also correct that the EPA would probably try to associate it with acid rain because the EPA is driven by emotionalism, not science. I still say it's easier to adopt rooftops and roadways that reflect more of the light in as visible spectra rather than absorb and radiate IR that is then reflected by water vapor and methane and CO2 ...

[Justin]

I really don't think that's a major factor. NDT is an excellent scientist in his own right, I just don't think you could call him the preeminent scientist of our time. Like Carl Sagan, he communicates well but he also sometimes lets his ideology outweigh his science.

That's my take on it.

As for issues regarding the carbon cycle and how it's relates to climate, that's not a discussion I'm interested in having.

[davsel]

Just some more religious anti-science huey:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/ (http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/)


Rohrabacher serves as the vice chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA and other agencies that monitor the Earth’s climate.

Rohrabacher has long been critical of the theory of man-made global warming. Lately, the California Republican has criticizing NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for allegedly tampering with temperature data to create an artificial warming trend. Such data is then used to justify regulations aimed at curbing fossil fuel use and other industrial activities.

@grngamine journalist investigation shows records of various weather stations altered by AGW advocates to make it appear to be warming. — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015

@caerbannog666 U seem unaware of latest revelation of data manipulation. NASA reported higher temp than what was record at weather stations — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015

Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.

“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”

For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.

Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.

“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.

“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”

NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.

“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.

Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.

But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”

“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.

UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.

“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”

[Gman]

Most of the drivers of the 'climate change' hoax are related to government funding. Governments that control people by fear of 'something'.

True science is never settled and is always skeptical about our current understanding of what we think we know.

[cstone]

Most of the drivers of the 'climate change' hoax are related to government funding. Governments that control people by fear of 'something'.

True science is never settled and is always skeptical about our current understanding of what we think we know.

+1

[Duman]

Well, astrology is a settled science....[Sarcasm2]

[Irving]

Even the Amish are going green.

NXnEAoOaTdc

[Justin]

Most of the drivers of the 'climate change' hoax are related to government funding. Governments that control people by fear of 'something'.

True science is never settled and is always skeptical about our current understanding of what we think we know.


This is why I never go anywhere without a carabiner and a length of rope.

I mean, you expect me to just believe a bunch of ivory-tower egg heads when they say the science is settled on their so-called "theory" of gravity?

[Aloha_Shooter]

I mean, you expect me to just believe a bunch of ivory-tower egg heads when they say the science is settled on their so-called "theory" of gravity?

Cute but I can predict the effects of gravity with reasonable accuracy (depending on how much I know about the starting state) and more importantly, I can back-predict with very good accuracy. The GCMs do a horrible job of either. If they can't back-predict the last decade without incredible "FM" black box work, why would you trust them to predict the NEXT decade? century?

You can conduct experiments demonstrating gravitational forces in high school and examine the data and code from post-PhD experiments freely. Getting Phil Jones' data or Michael Mann's code is like trying to get Obama to release his college transcripts. Great efforts have been made to reverse engineer Mann's code -- with the skeptics' products freely available on the web for examination, modification, and critique -- and done a pretty good job of bracketing what he did, thereby showing his missteps.

[Zundfolge]

This is why I never go anywhere without a carabiner and a length of rope.

I mean, you expect me to just believe a bunch of ivory-tower egg heads when they say the science is settled on their so-called "theory" of gravity?

You do realize that Einstein seriously altered the "settled science" of Newton (and the quantum mechanics guys are starting to question some of Einstein's findings)? No that doesn't mean you'll likely ever float away, but to claim that the "theory of gravity" is settled science is not entirely accurate.

A lot of folk will use the boiling point of water as an example of "settled science" but its not a constant (altitude and barometric pressure will alter it ... most of us here in Colorado should know this since we have to use the "high altitude directions" to make our Kraft Mac & Cheese). But back when 99.9% of the human population lived below 1000 ft it was assumed to be a carved in stone constant everywhere.

[Duman]

Whaaaaaaaa.......you mean Newton was wrong ?!? Seven years of college....down the drain! [facepalm]

[Duman]

You mean Eintein's fear of relatives trumps Newton's apple pie? [pick-me]

[Gman]

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning (http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html)

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

[TFOGGER]

So, who lit the fuse on the Big Bang? [Muaha][Pop]

[Aloha_Shooter]

So, who lit the fuse on the Big Bang? [Muaha][Pop]

God asked for a snack and Satan made him a Big Bean Burrito ...

[Duman]

....then someone pulled his finger.....I saw it in a painting in the Sistine chapel.....

[davsel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24DP1uG-MEM

[TFOGGER]

NASA published this report 2 years ago...

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/


in part:

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.


Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

[davsel]

Wait, is NASA wanting us to believe that planet Earth gets its heat from the Sun? HA!
And that when the sun is less active, it heats the planet less? HA HA!
Crazy talk I tell you!

[Gman]

NASA was compromised years ago. Take anything coming out of that agency with a grain of salt.

[bellavite1]

You guys are joking about Islam, but you do realize that the Church admitted being wrong about the same thing and kindly "pardoned" Galileo only in 1992?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

[68Charger]

You guys are joking about Islam, but you do realize that the CATHOLIC Church admitted being wrong about the same thing and kindly "pardoned" Galileo only in 1992?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
FIFY
Don't lump all Christians in the same bucket- there were a lot of reasons for the protestant movement...

[cstone]

Copernicus was a Roman Catholic and his theories were well known and discussed in Rome during the 1500's. Pope Paul III was aware and expressed interest in the heliocentric ideas presented by Copernicus. The Lutherans in Germany were equally interested and assisted in the initial publications of the Polish astronomers theories.

Copernicus, while not ordained as a priest in the Catholic Church, had taken minor orders and was actively involved in administering Canon Law in Eastern Prussia and modern day Poland.

Religion is not the enemy of science.

[davsel]

Well, damn, I guess that settles it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGH_vkC2B80

[Ah Pook]

Here are some more scientifical facts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2RMH9we62Q&feature=youtu.be

[Singlestack]

Well, it appears Beeho continues to push man-made global warming as one of his pet causes, in addition to widespread racist police brutality:
http://lastresistance.com/11896/obama-warns-about-global-warming-induced-extreme-weather-no-major-hurricane-in-almost-a-decade/

Obama Warns About Global Warming-Induced Extreme Weather; No Major Hurricane in Almost a DecadePosted on May 29, 2015 (http://lastresistance.com/11896/obama-warns-about-global-warming-induced-extreme-weather-no-major-hurricane-in-almost-a-decade/) by Philip Hodges (http://lastresistance.com/author/philiphodges/)
This is another one of those things that baffles scientists. They all know that burning fossil fuels causes global warming, and that global warming causes more extreme and frequent weather patterns. But in the same way we’ve experienced an inexplicable pause in global warming despite record carbon emissions, we’ve also witnessed a pause in major hurricanes. So much so that this pause is called a “hurricane drought.” It leaves scientists baffled, perhaps because their premises and presuppositions are wrong. But they would never consider that as a possibility. They start with their conclusion and then work their way backwards to find a possible explanation for their predetermined conclusion. The Daily Caller reported (http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/28/obama-warns-of-extreme-weather-despite-9-year-hurricane-drought/):
It’s been nearly a decade since a major hurricane has made landfall in the U.S., but that hasn’t stopped President Barack Obama from claiming that more global warming-induced “extreme weather” will pummel Americans every year.
Obama is set to tour the National Hurricane Center Thursday where he is expected to mention that man-made global warming will increase the risks of major hurricanes hitting the U.S. and costing causing billions of dollars in damages. Obama has frequently claimed (http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/20/obama-readies-the-troops-for-the-war-on-global-warming/) that hurricanes and other weather events will get more severe as humans emit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
But the facts aren’t on the president’s side when it comes to hurricanes. NHC experts will likely report to Obama Thursday they expect a relatively weak hurricane season this year, possibly continuing the U.S. “hurricane drought” even longer.
It’s been 3,503 days since a Category 3 or greater hurricane has made landfall in the U.S., according to storm data. The last major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. was in 2005 when Hurricane Wilma (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremeevents/specialreports/Hurricane-Wilma2005.pdf) hit Florida. Experts have dubbed this nine-year and seven-month period as a “hurricane drought.”
The lack of major hurricanes hitting the U.S. in the last decade has baffled scientists, and some have attributed the hurricane “drought” to dumb luck. A recent study (http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/study-claims-9-year-us-hurricane-drought-doesnt-prove-alarmism-wrong/) by NASA found that the U.S. has just been lucky this past decade when it comes to major hurricanes.
“When we looked qualitatively at the nine-year drought, they aren’t inactive seasons,” lead author Timothy Hall with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies said in a statement (http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2015/04/29/lucky-break-kept-major-hurricanes-offshore-since-2005/). “I don’t believe there is a major regime shift that’s protecting the U.S.”
So far, the consensus among scientists is that global warming will cause fewer hurricanes, some of which will be made more intense as humans increase carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. But even that’s been elusive so far as major storms seem to be bypassing the U.S.
It doesn’t matter what ends up happening with the weather patterns; it’ll be portrayed as negative and caused by GOP-induced global warming. Even if there’s a slowdown in extreme weather, they’ll find a way to make it sound like that’s actually a bad thing, and it’s all because of fossil fuel consumption.
************************************************** *************************
BTW, some "inconvenient truths" about global warming on the Two Minute Conservative blog: http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/

[Aloha_Shooter]

As solid as his track record is on being absolutely wrong on everything, I'd be more worried if he came out expressed some doubt about "climate change". Even a broken clock is more accurate than Obama because the broken clock is right twice a day ...

[roberth]

Now, now, don't let the facts get in the way of the agenda.

[MrPrena]

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning (http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html)

Good article.
Not going to bored people w/ Theoretical/Astro Physics, but I am leaning towards "gravity."