- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study: Temp adjustments account for ‘Nearly all of Warming’ In climate data
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:38 pm to Iosh
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:38 pm to Iosh
quote:ice free Arctic is the normal state of the earth for the vast majority of it's existence and for the vast majority of the time advanced life has existed on Earth. That's just science.
quote:
Ice-free arctic.
Maslowski's predictions were not well-regarded among most scientists at the time, as a cursory comparison of his projections vs the IPCC consensus projections shows. Given that this was a case where a scientist's bad prediction was properly rejected by his peers, I'm not sure how it translates to a broader indictment of the AGW hypothesis. The system worked, to the extent we're looking at actual published research and not Al Gore's fat mouth.
0
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:39 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
Man, you're going to stand on the warming hoax for good.
Brainwashing demands it.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:44 pm to Iosh
quote:
Maslowski's predictions were not well-regarded among most scientists at the time,
Doesn't matter as it did what it was intended to do, cause alarm and milk more funding.
quote:
Given that this was a case where a scientist's bad prediction was properly rejected by his peers,
This is the standard out when the prediction fails. The catastrophe is hyped and placed on the front pages, but the peer rejections are hidden or not mentioned at all until it's time to save face.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:44 pm to Dale51
quote:Because the earth system feedbacks operate on long time scales. If we went to zero emissions tomorrow, for instance, the Earth's warming wouldn't tail off for several decades because it takes a while for the carbon cycle to reach a new equilibrium. Other feedbacks like sea level rise are even longer, on the scale of centuries. It's neither economically nor physically feasible to wait until the effects reach "doom and gloom" level and then suddenly flip a switch, stop emitting carbon, and everything goes back to normal.
Lets stick with my original "Doom and gloom". Are you claiming there were none made? If the predictions were not "dire"...why worry about it?
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:46 pm to Jake88
quote:This is a failure of journalism, not a failure of science.
This is the standard out when the prediction fails. The catastrophe is hyped and placed on the front pages, but the peer rejections are hidden or not mentioned at all until it's time to save face.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:50 pm to Iosh
That's correct, but I wonder how strident the critics were and how doggedly they pursued correcting the journalists.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:50 pm to i am dan
quote:
My biggest issue with this whole debate is that science was politicized
They have hi-jacked the scientific method and turned it into a faith-based dogma.
fricking progressives have zero shame.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:50 pm to Iosh
quote:Exactly. And, quite obviously, zero isn't even in the discussion. 50% isn't even in the discussion. So, "several decades" moves forward a LOT.
Because the earth system feedbacks operate on long time scales. If we went to zero emissions tomorrow, for instance, the Earth's warming wouldn't tail off for several decades because it takes a while for the carbon cycle to reach a new equilibrium.
quote:
It's neither economically nor physically feasible to wait until the effects reach "doom and gloom" level and then suddenly flip a switch, stop emitting carbon, and everything goes back to normal.
If I assume that everything the Warming crowd tells me, then the one thing I know FOR CERTAIN is that their prescriptions are idiotic at the least, suicidal at worst.
Why?
1. By their own admission, NOTHING we do now will change the predicted poor outcomes inside of nearly 200 years.
2. But STILL, they prescribe economically crippling behavior against the most prolific nations on the planet(while simultaneously encouraging expansion among the have nots but that's just more comedy).
3. But if #1 is true and nothing we do will stave off the effect, then the ONLY thing we have at our disposal is DEALING with the effects in the best manner possible.
4. Dealing with the effects will require the deployments of vast amount of resources which, their #2 seeks to gut.
Basically, the Warming crowd is saying, "hey, you're playing Russian Roulette with a loaded weapon........our solution is to take 1 of the bullets out".
Da frick. No. Assuming you can't get rid of the gun, The solution is to put a fricking bullet proof helmet on!
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:51 pm to RobbBobb
Well I'll be. I guess there IS man-made global warming.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:53 pm to ShortyRob
Another way you know the Warming crowd is more about leftist politics than anything else is to recognize the following.
1. All of their solutions miraculously line up with leftist politics that existed before the problem was identified.
2. Global Warming, if you listened to just them, has ZERO positive effects. Well, that's just fricking odd(and wrong).
No one evaluates a problem without identifying BOTH the positives and the negatives and considering the trade offs.
But, interestingly, they literally NEVER talk about one of those to the public.
1. All of their solutions miraculously line up with leftist politics that existed before the problem was identified.
2. Global Warming, if you listened to just them, has ZERO positive effects. Well, that's just fricking odd(and wrong).
No one evaluates a problem without identifying BOTH the positives and the negatives and considering the trade offs.
But, interestingly, they literally NEVER talk about one of those to the public.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:54 pm to Iosh
The future generations may be eating a lot more bugs than us if some of the predictions I have read come true. 
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:57 pm to ShortyRob
quote:"The Warming crowd" as a monolithic entity advocating a single prescription is a straw man. There's substantial scientific consensus on the effects of CO2 and substantial economic consensus that those effects have net negative economic impacts. But there's little (political) consensus on what the best way to reduce emissions is. That's why the Paris accords were basically a baby step of "country A agrees to lower emissions to X" and didn't specify any particular method of getting there. There's substantially less consensus over the "how" than the "what" and the "why."
If I assume that everything the Warming crowd tells me, then the one thing I know FOR CERTAIN is that their prescriptions are idiotic at the least, suicidal at worst.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:58 pm to Maytheporkbewithyou
There are three truisms in life:
1) The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.
2) Mankind is the cause of such warming.
3) The science is settled.
Those who refuse to subscribe to the above facts are not worth my attention.
1) The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.
2) Mankind is the cause of such warming.
3) The science is settled.
Those who refuse to subscribe to the above facts are not worth my attention.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:59 pm to Iosh
quote:
not a failure of science.
So which scientist stepped out to inform the journalistic community to slow their jets some? None. All we hear is that 99% all agree, and the one's that don't, are lunatic deniers. This is why I have a hard time believing anything scientific. There should be good debate on the subject always to reaffirm the data. When you hear terms like "manipulated" and "falsified" from the scientific community on any subject, it should give everyone pause.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:00 pm to tarzana
Your trolling has gotten super lazy lately. Like Kevin Sumlin lazy.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:00 pm to tarzana
quote:OK we really need to stop with this nonsense. I believe in global warming, but I'm tired of both sides in their exteme and absolutely unwavering stances. It's patently unscientific.
3) The science is settled.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:00 pm to tarzana
quote:How much is caused by man?
2) Mankind is the cause of such warming.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:01 pm to tarzana
Good lord. If you really believe this you should be locked up in a padded cell
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:03 pm to Jbird
quote:
How much is caused by man?
Scientifically speaking...whole bunches because AWantaza says the science is settled. If you question it, you're a wacko
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:05 pm to tarzana
quote:
There are three truisms in life:
1) The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.
2) Mankind is the cause of such warming.
3) The science is settled.
Sounds like you found your religion. Good for you
Page 4 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News