Making something “More accurate” doesn’t mean anything when their climate models show no skill whatsoever and e.g. over the nine years I checked the Met Office yearly climate prediction then was less than a 1 in 10,000 chance it could be so bad (i.e. it wasn’t predicting anything).
The simple fact, is that the only people who have shown any skill at forecasting … are those who like me have stated that natural variation is the most significant factor determining global temperature … because at least the pause is one possible outcome.
In contrast, the climate academics predicted “children won’t know what snow is” … it still snows, they predicted warming of at least 0.14C/decade … not one measurement (even thought the surface data is massively altered) shows even this lowest temperature rise. Sea level rise has not accelerated. Antarctic and Greenland ice is increasing. Global sea ice has not decreased.
There is no adverse trends in floods or droughts. Indeed, the only real trend in severe weather is a reduction in hurricanes.
What then about all the adverse impacts? Well CO2 is rising and guess what … globally we are seeing a greening of the planet and record harvests.
And even if we did see further warming, in the UK there are around 37,000 extra winter deaths each year (1million since this scam started!!). And worldwide more people die from cold than heat. So, even if there were warming, the best estimate on actual medical data is that we will see a REDUCTION in mortality rates due to weather.
So, no, these academics have totally failed to predict anything substantial about the climate despite claiming something like a 95% confidence they were right (and it grew the longer the pause continued).
Imagine anyone in the insurance industry with a record like that! They’d have been thrown out within weeks. And there is no way on earth they would be allowed to advise government or worse, risk other people’s money on their hair brained ideas and empty promises about “what will happen”.
” over the nine years I checked the Met Office yearly climate prediction then was less than a 1 in 10,000 chance it could be so bad (i.e. it wasn’t predicting anything).”
Can you post somewhere your method for checking this, particularly the mathematics behind it? Every legit source I’ve seen has said they were off because they underestimated it. Thanks.
I will 100% discredit ANY scientists’ work on this subject until they come from a place of disproving a theory instead of trying to prove that said theory is actually true. That is the basis of all science.
If global warming is the theory 9and it is), then scientists have to be in a position to disprove it first. Otherwise they’re not scientists…..they’re political hacks.
This report does nothing but try to skew a political view that global warming somehow does exist, and in turn we need to make things more arduous for businesses and consumers, more expensive for businesses and consumers, and incorporate the federal government into more facets of our everyday lives. I don’t see anything else of value in this modeling, especially coming from a “scientist” who is on a climate change council.
Good comment Supreme. I am sure the Climate Change boys will be along shortly to tell you that you are full of “hot air” and that man is at fault for the C02 emissions and the world will not last much longer. By the way, in my botany class in college, the professor said C02 was good for plant life. Plants absorb C02 and give off oxygen which is a good thing for us.
“I will 100% discredit ANY scientists’ work on this subject until they come from a place of disproving a theory instead of trying to prove that said theory is actually true. That is the basis of all science.”
That is moronic beyond belief.
Observations, questions, hypothesis, test, data, theories. That is the scientific method. You don’t formulate a hypothesis on something you are trying to disprove.
You right-wingers are incompetent on even the most basic of things you are supposed to learn in elementary.
Actually UW, the FIRST thing you learn in middle school science is how to disprove a theory before trying to actually prove it, THROUGH observations, questions, hypothesis, testing, data, etc. THEN and ONLY then can you start to explore other avenues that might be plausible or false as well, narrowing in on theories that may be true. Truth is the final end game with science. It’s not the starting line. Scientists are supposed to be skeptics from day one, period.
But since someone is brining the sass already to start the week, I’ll patiently wait until you grab one of your current text books to prove me wrong since I know you’re still repeating the sixth grade. If you can prove me wrong, I’ll even throw you a wittle pizza party my wittle itty bitty scholar.
You are a clueless moron. You pretend they created this theory out of nowhere, it was the first theory, and they stuck with it. In reality they looked at natural cycles, sun spots,the claims it wasn’t warning, claims it was cooling, and on and on. Your side is wrong, 100%. Every claim you guys make has been debunked, and I think it’s criminal.
2015 was the hottest on record by a lot, and it looks like February smashed another record.
I’ll assume the clown won’t post his surely very rigorous methods to support his claims.
“Your side is wrong, 100%. Every claim you guys make has been debunked, and I think it’s criminal”
I think it’s highly illogical to make statements like this.
The republicans have been wrong about 100% of the claims they have made?
How is that possible when some statements are simply stating that climate change exists but is not to the degree democrats say it is, and then bind that in with this article? They are trying to make research reliable which means by default, the admission is that it is not completely reliable.
It is 100% wrong to state something is not 100% reliable?
That is science right there.
Also, UW, I doubt you went through college courses in science.
UW Supreme sounds like he may not have either but he is closer to correct.
When a scientist makes his theory that something is true, all scientists are supposed to test the theory and assume it is false, and find what (or if) proves the theory to be false. They are not supposed to focus on what proves the theory true because that is irrelevant to testing a theory.
So saying: The weather changed today. That matches up with my theory, if you go back to my theory it might be off a bit but here I have modified it.
Usually you would have someone come in and attempt to falsify the theory to test it at it’s strongest.
If you don’t do this, you aren’t testing the theory properly, and in this regard, UW Supreme is absolutely correct that he should not believe reports that start with the assumption that a theory is true and will modify itself constantly in order to meet any scenario.
That borders becoming an unfalsifiable theory in an unusual way. What I mean by this is that you cannot test the theory to be falsifiable because the scientist keeps changing the theory but claiming it is the same, while stating you never proved it wrong.
This is not usually how something becomes unfalsifiable. It is usually when a supernatural item that cannot be weighed is being stated to be the cause which you cannot falsify.
But in this case I think you can actually make the statement that the process being taken is an attempt to fraudulently make the theory of climate change unfalsifiable or testable. Climate change parameters will simply change and then become true again.
This is fine if you have someone assuming they are wrong to begin with, then you modify the wrong sections. But if you assume they are correct to begin with…Well…You have an issue in that you are not going to test them you’re just going to keep doing tests that come back true.
March 7, 2016 at 4:22 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
I really should add here, UW:
I come from a family of chronic environmentalists.
We didn’t even use lights most the time unless absolutely needed. I still remember my mom getting ticked about it. Or if we didn’t recycle the right items. Etc.
There is a difference between personal choice and governmental control. Conservatives can agree climate change is occurring, but disagree that the government should do carbon credits, green energy subsidizing, or other areas.
In my case I agree with subsidizing. I agree with being cautious. However, with how democrats are approaching this, I know this is just a vote garnering aspect for them. Nothing more.
They used this to block keystone oil and garner votes. That wasn’t ok. Keystone oil should have been taken on.
Green energy isn’t about political bashing and points.
March 7, 2016 at 10:16 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
7
2
“The republicans have been wrong about 100% of the claims they have made?”
No, the climate change deniers, but nice assumption. I guess technically since seemingly every Republican is also a climate change denier it probably applies to the party too, in this case.
“They are trying to make research reliable which means by default, the admission is that it is not completely reliable.”
No, they are trying to make it more accurate, not reliable, there is a huge difference. The models have underestimated the climate gains. That is mainly because they go conservative, and release the conservative estimates. They have been remarkably reliable.
“When a scientist makes his theory that something is true, all scientists are supposed to test the theory and assume it is false, and find what (or if) proves the theory to be false. They are not supposed to focus on what proves the theory true because that is irrelevant to testing a theory.”
Which, as I have stated is not what they did. They observed the world seemed warmer, and tested many theories, including whether it was actually cooling. After decades of research they came to an overwhelming consensus that the earth was indeed warming, was warming because of human activity, and would continue to increase. There has been significant research into this after this theory seemed sound, and it is overwhelmingly supported by basically all climate scientists.
Of course, some non-climate scientists, psychologists, and other non-experts have chimed in with their “research” like that an ice age was coming, but they are simply wrong. Similarly to when conservatives quote English majors on economic analysis, they love to cite people who don’t work in the field to “disprove” the theory they think just popped up.
As always, conservatives (who make up the overwhelming majority of climate change deniers) are decades behind the times and the research, and then act as if there hasn’t been decades of research into the topic.
“Conservatives can agree climate change is occurring, but disagree that the government should do carbon credits, green energy subsidizing, or other areas.”
Except conservatives for the most part do not agree it is happening, which is a major problem. They are basically alone in the world in this belief. In 1 Gallup poll only about 40% of Republicans think it has started, and in another about 40% think it will NEVER happen, while 56% don’t believe it. They are simply wrong.
As for subsidies, you are just wrong again. “There is a difference between personal choice and governmental control. ”
There is. But, not here. If this is a problem, which close to 100% of scientists agree it is, that means something has to be done, or people will die, people will be harmed, and economies will be devastated. But, this is a problem where there are too many externalities for people and companies to take care of the problem on their own, there is also a massive free-rider problem. This is a perfect example of when the ONLY option is government intervention.
Of course, one side has a lot of people who want to fix it, and one side has 60% of people who doesn’t think it exists. This group, the Republicans, also have according to one study, 56% of their elected representatives who do not believe in it. So, we need more BS rhetoric about both sides having a lot of people for solutions, and then eliminating all solutions.
“Keystone oil should have been taken on.” You always complain about Keystone, but you are completely misguided. You cannot say you are concerned about climate change on one hand, and then say Keystone should have been approved on the other hand. The emissions from that type of fuel would have guaranteed reaching the climate change tipping point. On top of that, it provided very little economic benefit for the US. Also, even the company didn’t want to do it anymore once the price of gas dropped.
You can pretend to be a moderate, not believing in every single right-wing conspiracy theory, but it’s pretty irrelevant if you embrace every far right-wing talking point, position, and policy.
March 7, 2016 at 5:09 pm
UW Supreme says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Bob, you’re right. I didn’t take science classes in college. I majored in gambling, loose women, and drinking. The rest of my curriculum was a waste of time.
love it…Sounds just like the great Tug McGraw…towards the end of his life he was broke and he said pretty much the same thing.
March 8, 2016 at 4:50 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
louie, I always liked the great Tug McGraw. He could look like he was throwing hard when he wasn’t and would bait hitters to swing at bad pitches. Too bad he couldn’t manage his money. You can say about the same thing on many pro athletes in basketball or football who get taken by con artists, agents etc. Many end up washing cars or get into trouble with drugs and end up in prison. Nate Newton got caught with a trunk full of Marijuana and then was dumb enough to say – I didn’t know that was back there, it isn’t mine. I think he served 2 or 3 years for possession with intent to distribute.
March 4, 2016 at 3:09 pm
Hawkeye says:
Like or Dislike:
6
7
The only “outside influence” these climate alarmists want to consider is anthropogenic carbon dioxide generation. They ought to stick their head outside their office window once in a while and look up at the big yellow thing called the sun. Then open up an eighth grade science textbook and refresh their memories about sunspots, solar flares, etc. But to look out the window, they would first need to extract their heads from another dark place.
Icebergs I ride on aren’t melting under me. I don’t think I can ride one down to Menticeto, CA to see Al Gore’s ocean-view villa before the iceberg melts – or the villa is submerged. But if icebergs start melting faster in the near future, I hope Al and those smart climate change scientists will stop ‘conveniently’ flying in private jets to hold conferences to tell us unwashed to not emit carbon dioxide. (Maybe that’s why Al looks bloated?)
It is a good thing you said (roughly). It may be actually higher. When their lips move, they are lying. It gets real old and the people are sick of it.
Making something “More accurate” doesn’t mean anything when their climate models show no skill whatsoever and e.g. over the nine years I checked the Met Office yearly climate prediction then was less than a 1 in 10,000 chance it could be so bad (i.e. it wasn’t predicting anything).
The simple fact, is that the only people who have shown any skill at forecasting … are those who like me have stated that natural variation is the most significant factor determining global temperature … because at least the pause is one possible outcome.
In contrast, the climate academics predicted “children won’t know what snow is” … it still snows, they predicted warming of at least 0.14C/decade … not one measurement (even thought the surface data is massively altered) shows even this lowest temperature rise. Sea level rise has not accelerated. Antarctic and Greenland ice is increasing. Global sea ice has not decreased.
There is no adverse trends in floods or droughts. Indeed, the only real trend in severe weather is a reduction in hurricanes.
What then about all the adverse impacts? Well CO2 is rising and guess what … globally we are seeing a greening of the planet and record harvests.
And even if we did see further warming, in the UK there are around 37,000 extra winter deaths each year (1million since this scam started!!). And worldwide more people die from cold than heat. So, even if there were warming, the best estimate on actual medical data is that we will see a REDUCTION in mortality rates due to weather.
So, no, these academics have totally failed to predict anything substantial about the climate despite claiming something like a 95% confidence they were right (and it grew the longer the pause continued).
Imagine anyone in the insurance industry with a record like that! They’d have been thrown out within weeks. And there is no way on earth they would be allowed to advise government or worse, risk other people’s money on their hair brained ideas and empty promises about “what will happen”.
” over the nine years I checked the Met Office yearly climate prediction then was less than a 1 in 10,000 chance it could be so bad (i.e. it wasn’t predicting anything).”
Can you post somewhere your method for checking this, particularly the mathematics behind it? Every legit source I’ve seen has said they were off because they underestimated it. Thanks.
I will 100% discredit ANY scientists’ work on this subject until they come from a place of disproving a theory instead of trying to prove that said theory is actually true. That is the basis of all science.
If global warming is the theory 9and it is), then scientists have to be in a position to disprove it first. Otherwise they’re not scientists…..they’re political hacks.
This report does nothing but try to skew a political view that global warming somehow does exist, and in turn we need to make things more arduous for businesses and consumers, more expensive for businesses and consumers, and incorporate the federal government into more facets of our everyday lives. I don’t see anything else of value in this modeling, especially coming from a “scientist” who is on a climate change council.
Good comment Supreme. I am sure the Climate Change boys will be along shortly to tell you that you are full of “hot air” and that man is at fault for the C02 emissions and the world will not last much longer. By the way, in my botany class in college, the professor said C02 was good for plant life. Plants absorb C02 and give off oxygen which is a good thing for us.
“I will 100% discredit ANY scientists’ work on this subject until they come from a place of disproving a theory instead of trying to prove that said theory is actually true. That is the basis of all science.”
That is moronic beyond belief.
Observations, questions, hypothesis, test, data, theories. That is the scientific method. You don’t formulate a hypothesis on something you are trying to disprove.
You right-wingers are incompetent on even the most basic of things you are supposed to learn in elementary.
So much anger.
Actually UW, the FIRST thing you learn in middle school science is how to disprove a theory before trying to actually prove it, THROUGH observations, questions, hypothesis, testing, data, etc. THEN and ONLY then can you start to explore other avenues that might be plausible or false as well, narrowing in on theories that may be true. Truth is the final end game with science. It’s not the starting line. Scientists are supposed to be skeptics from day one, period.
But since someone is brining the sass already to start the week, I’ll patiently wait until you grab one of your current text books to prove me wrong since I know you’re still repeating the sixth grade. If you can prove me wrong, I’ll even throw you a wittle pizza party my wittle itty bitty scholar.
Go chase that gold star little buddy!!
You are a clueless moron. You pretend they created this theory out of nowhere, it was the first theory, and they stuck with it. In reality they looked at natural cycles, sun spots,the claims it wasn’t warning, claims it was cooling, and on and on. Your side is wrong, 100%. Every claim you guys make has been debunked, and I think it’s criminal.
2015 was the hottest on record by a lot, and it looks like February smashed another record.
I’ll assume the clown won’t post his surely very rigorous methods to support his claims.
“Your side is wrong, 100%. Every claim you guys make has been debunked, and I think it’s criminal”
I think it’s highly illogical to make statements like this.
The republicans have been wrong about 100% of the claims they have made?
How is that possible when some statements are simply stating that climate change exists but is not to the degree democrats say it is, and then bind that in with this article? They are trying to make research reliable which means by default, the admission is that it is not completely reliable.
It is 100% wrong to state something is not 100% reliable?
That is science right there.
Also, UW, I doubt you went through college courses in science.
UW Supreme sounds like he may not have either but he is closer to correct.
When a scientist makes his theory that something is true, all scientists are supposed to test the theory and assume it is false, and find what (or if) proves the theory to be false. They are not supposed to focus on what proves the theory true because that is irrelevant to testing a theory.
So saying: The weather changed today. That matches up with my theory, if you go back to my theory it might be off a bit but here I have modified it.
Usually you would have someone come in and attempt to falsify the theory to test it at it’s strongest.
If you don’t do this, you aren’t testing the theory properly, and in this regard, UW Supreme is absolutely correct that he should not believe reports that start with the assumption that a theory is true and will modify itself constantly in order to meet any scenario.
That borders becoming an unfalsifiable theory in an unusual way. What I mean by this is that you cannot test the theory to be falsifiable because the scientist keeps changing the theory but claiming it is the same, while stating you never proved it wrong.
This is not usually how something becomes unfalsifiable. It is usually when a supernatural item that cannot be weighed is being stated to be the cause which you cannot falsify.
But in this case I think you can actually make the statement that the process being taken is an attempt to fraudulently make the theory of climate change unfalsifiable or testable. Climate change parameters will simply change and then become true again.
This is fine if you have someone assuming they are wrong to begin with, then you modify the wrong sections. But if you assume they are correct to begin with…Well…You have an issue in that you are not going to test them you’re just going to keep doing tests that come back true.
I really should add here, UW:
I come from a family of chronic environmentalists.
We didn’t even use lights most the time unless absolutely needed. I still remember my mom getting ticked about it. Or if we didn’t recycle the right items. Etc.
There is a difference between personal choice and governmental control. Conservatives can agree climate change is occurring, but disagree that the government should do carbon credits, green energy subsidizing, or other areas.
In my case I agree with subsidizing. I agree with being cautious. However, with how democrats are approaching this, I know this is just a vote garnering aspect for them. Nothing more.
They used this to block keystone oil and garner votes. That wasn’t ok. Keystone oil should have been taken on.
Green energy isn’t about political bashing and points.
“The republicans have been wrong about 100% of the claims they have made?”
No, the climate change deniers, but nice assumption. I guess technically since seemingly every Republican is also a climate change denier it probably applies to the party too, in this case.
“They are trying to make research reliable which means by default, the admission is that it is not completely reliable.”
No, they are trying to make it more accurate, not reliable, there is a huge difference. The models have underestimated the climate gains. That is mainly because they go conservative, and release the conservative estimates. They have been remarkably reliable.
“When a scientist makes his theory that something is true, all scientists are supposed to test the theory and assume it is false, and find what (or if) proves the theory to be false. They are not supposed to focus on what proves the theory true because that is irrelevant to testing a theory.”
Which, as I have stated is not what they did. They observed the world seemed warmer, and tested many theories, including whether it was actually cooling. After decades of research they came to an overwhelming consensus that the earth was indeed warming, was warming because of human activity, and would continue to increase. There has been significant research into this after this theory seemed sound, and it is overwhelmingly supported by basically all climate scientists.
Of course, some non-climate scientists, psychologists, and other non-experts have chimed in with their “research” like that an ice age was coming, but they are simply wrong. Similarly to when conservatives quote English majors on economic analysis, they love to cite people who don’t work in the field to “disprove” the theory they think just popped up.
As always, conservatives (who make up the overwhelming majority of climate change deniers) are decades behind the times and the research, and then act as if there hasn’t been decades of research into the topic.
“Conservatives can agree climate change is occurring, but disagree that the government should do carbon credits, green energy subsidizing, or other areas.”
Except conservatives for the most part do not agree it is happening, which is a major problem. They are basically alone in the world in this belief. In 1 Gallup poll only about 40% of Republicans think it has started, and in another about 40% think it will NEVER happen, while 56% don’t believe it. They are simply wrong.
As for subsidies, you are just wrong again. “There is a difference between personal choice and governmental control. ”
There is. But, not here. If this is a problem, which close to 100% of scientists agree it is, that means something has to be done, or people will die, people will be harmed, and economies will be devastated. But, this is a problem where there are too many externalities for people and companies to take care of the problem on their own, there is also a massive free-rider problem. This is a perfect example of when the ONLY option is government intervention.
Of course, one side has a lot of people who want to fix it, and one side has 60% of people who doesn’t think it exists. This group, the Republicans, also have according to one study, 56% of their elected representatives who do not believe in it. So, we need more BS rhetoric about both sides having a lot of people for solutions, and then eliminating all solutions.
“Keystone oil should have been taken on.” You always complain about Keystone, but you are completely misguided. You cannot say you are concerned about climate change on one hand, and then say Keystone should have been approved on the other hand. The emissions from that type of fuel would have guaranteed reaching the climate change tipping point. On top of that, it provided very little economic benefit for the US. Also, even the company didn’t want to do it anymore once the price of gas dropped.
You can pretend to be a moderate, not believing in every single right-wing conspiracy theory, but it’s pretty irrelevant if you embrace every far right-wing talking point, position, and policy.
Bob, you’re right. I didn’t take science classes in college. I majored in gambling, loose women, and drinking. The rest of my curriculum was a waste of time.
That’s the best reply.
I have nothing I can say to that.
love it…Sounds just like the great Tug McGraw…towards the end of his life he was broke and he said pretty much the same thing.
louie, I always liked the great Tug McGraw. He could look like he was throwing hard when he wasn’t and would bait hitters to swing at bad pitches. Too bad he couldn’t manage his money. You can say about the same thing on many pro athletes in basketball or football who get taken by con artists, agents etc. Many end up washing cars or get into trouble with drugs and end up in prison. Nate Newton got caught with a trunk full of Marijuana and then was dumb enough to say – I didn’t know that was back there, it isn’t mine. I think he served 2 or 3 years for possession with intent to distribute.
The only “outside influence” these climate alarmists want to consider is anthropogenic carbon dioxide generation. They ought to stick their head outside their office window once in a while and look up at the big yellow thing called the sun. Then open up an eighth grade science textbook and refresh their memories about sunspots, solar flares, etc. But to look out the window, they would first need to extract their heads from another dark place.
Look out the window!!!
Icebergs I ride on aren’t melting under me. I don’t think I can ride one down to Menticeto, CA to see Al Gore’s ocean-view villa before the iceberg melts – or the villa is submerged. But if icebergs start melting faster in the near future, I hope Al and those smart climate change scientists will stop ‘conveniently’ flying in private jets to hold conferences to tell us unwashed to not emit carbon dioxide. (Maybe that’s why Al looks bloated?)
Big Al is bloated because he is full of – – it.
As are (roughly) over 85% of our politicians!
It is a good thing you said (roughly). It may be actually higher. When their lips move, they are lying. It gets real old and the people are sick of it.