Winning the war against religion

[Super Nova]

I am challenging the science because for the last 15 years the science has been wrong. Even the IPCC admits that they will have to trash their models within 3 years if the warming doesn't appear.

Skeptical science is a warmerist website and their spin has been debunked a number of times. It's run by a fucking cartoonist

The science has not been wrong, it is the modelling. Like weather forecasting... as you have more complex models, more data points and more powerful computing you can improve your forecasts.

Climate forecasting is the same raised to an exponential level of difficulty and complexity.

Predicting chaotic systems is a complex challenge.

[IQS.RLOW]

I am challenging the science because for the last 15 years the science has been wrong. Even the IPCC admits that they will have to trash their models within 3 years if the warming doesn't appear.

Skeptical science is a warmerist website and their spin has been debunked a number of times. It's run by a fucking cartoonist

The science has not been wrong, it is the modelling. Like weather forecasting... as you have more complex models, more data points and more powerful computing you can improve your forecasts.

Climate forecasting is the same raised to an exponential level of difficulty and complexity.

Predicting chaotic systems is a complex challenge.

Exactly...but they are using flawed science models towards economic policy.
No...just no. A big fat, go fuck yourself NO.

So the best course of action is no action at all until the smoking gun is produced because the insurance cost is too high.

Are you prepared to pay $50K insurance per year for your $25k car?

[Super Nova]

I am challenging the science because for the last 15 years the science has been wrong. Even the IPCC admits that they will have to trash their models within 3 years if the warming doesn't appear.

Skeptical science is a warmerist website and their spin has been debunked a number of times. It's run by a fucking cartoonist

The science has not been wrong, it is the modelling. Like weather forecasting... as you have more complex models, more data points and more powerful computing you can improve your forecasts.

Climate forecasting is the same raised to an exponential level of difficulty and complexity.

Predicting chaotic systems is a complex challenge.

Exactly...but they are using flawed science models towards economic policy.
No...just no. A big fat, go fuck yourself NO.

So the best course of action is no action at all until the smoking gun is produced because the insurance cost is too high.

Are you prepared to pay $50K insurance per year for your $25k car?

Excellent now we have got to the bottom of it and we are in dander of agreeing...

The economic policies has carbon taxation only really and are flawed. - we agree
The current model failed to predict the short term reduce warming - we agree
The future longer term models may (and probably will based on the first drafting of the report) will show dangerous levels of warming that will impact the whole of the planet in the near future - not sure we agree
If these models predict that manmade warming will have devastating effects on the planet it will conclude we should take mitigation action not just adaption action - I think we need to be proactive and mitigate - I think we disagree.

is this were we are at?

[IQS.RLOW]

If these models predict that manmade warming will have devastating effects on the planet it will conclude we should take mitigation action not just adaption action - I think we need to be proactive and mitigate - I think we disagree.

No, because
a) The models are wrong
b) the cost of mitigation is too great to mankind "if" manmade CO2 emissions are the culprit
c) Its impossible to police
d) Carbon trading was an invention of the same guys who brought us the GFC
e) You will never get all nations to comply
f) Carbon emissions won't stop. They will be exported to nations with even less environmental policies
c) Adaptation is cheaper by 50:1

You have bought into the faith of "catastrophic AGW", your faith is wrong and I will not pay for your faith.

[Chard]

I am challenging the science because for the last 15 years the science has been wrong.

More likely you don't understand the science. It's ok, most people don't and that's the source of confusion. Luckily, I'm here to help!

I get the impression that you think of "warming" in the conventional sense of warmth and not the scientific concept of heat, i.e. energy transfer with in a thermodynamic system. Climatologists are a kind of scientist, wand when geeks with lab coats start blathering about warming of a system they're talking about additional energy entering the system (heat). The more energy in a system the more turbulent the system becomes because according to thermodynamics system like to try to achieve a state of equilibrium by evenly distribution energy across the system.

This is what drives weather on our planet. It's just our atmosphere trying dissipate and redistribute energy. The more energy in our atmosphere the more the weather changes.

Even the IPCC admits that they will have to trash their models within 3 years if the warming doesn't appear.

The global mean temp has been rising. It's risen a little over 1C over the past century with .2C of that increase happening over just the past decade. That might not sound like much, but keep in mind that change represents about an order of magnitude more energy then you'd get if you took every nuclear weapon every built from 1946 to present and blew them all up.

Oh, and that rate of warming is currently accelerating.

Skeptical science is a warmerist website and their spin has been debunked a number of times. It's run by a fucking cartoonist

Ok, so a website by a cartoonist doesn't grab ya. Understandable. If you really need convincing that global warming is really a thing that's actually happening go and compare the number of climatologists that thing global warming is real and the number that do not.

[IQS.RLOW]

More likely you don't understand the science. It's ok, most people don't and that's the source of confusion. Luckily, I'm here to help!

I get the impression that you think of "warming" in the conventional sense of warmth and not the scientific concept of heat, i.e. energy transfer with in a thermodynamic system. Climatologists are a kind of scientist, wand when geeks with lab coats start blathering about warming of a system they're talking about additional energy entering the system (heat). The more energy in a system the more turbulent the system becomes because according to thermodynamics system like to try to achieve a state of equilibrium by evenly distribution energy across the system.

More than likely, you haven't paid attention in detail to this subject.

There has been no statistically significant warming now approaching 16 years despite the CO2 increase. The models and science are wrong and they haven't been able to find a feedback that they would desperately like to, so that worldwide govt taxes can be campaigned for by idiots.

Oh, and that rate of warming is currently accelerating.

Link? Evidence? Over the last 16 years?

Ok, so a website by a cartoonist doesn't grab ya. Understandable. If you really need convincing that global warming is really a thing that's actually happening go and compare the number of climatologists that thing global warming is real and the number that do not.

Really? Do I have to invoke every scientific discovery by an individual that went against the grain? Galileo is rolling in his grave.

[Chard]

Round 2, FIGHT!

More than likely, you haven't paid attention in detail to this subject.

I'm not the one denying statistic evidence in the form of weather records, guy.

There has been no statistically significant warming now approaching 16 years despite the CO2 increase. The models and science are wrong and they haven't been able to find a feedback that they would desperately like to, so that worldwide govt taxes can be campaigned for by idiots.

Dude, I just linked you to statistical evidence backed by peer-reviewed accepted research from NASA's
Goddard Space Flight Center Sciences and Exploration Directorate Earth Sciences Division (GSFCSEDESD, NASA is really bad at acronyms sometimes, but they're damn good at SCIENCE!). Deny all you like, but the evidence has just been presented to you and until you can provide evidence to the contrary from a credible source that's withstood peer-review you are full of shit.

Oh, and that rate of warming is currently accelerating.

Link? Evidence? Over the last 16 years?

Really? Do I have to invoke every scientific discovery by an individual that went against the grain? Galileo is rolling in his grave.

It's ironic you say that considering you have yet to demonstrate any understanding of the science involved or present any evidence for your claims.

[IQS.RLOW]

I'm not the one denying statistic evidence in the form of weather records, guy.

Dude, we are talking about climate, not weather and specifically the last 16 years. You can obfuscate all you like by not addressing the last 16 years but the facts stand. No statistically significant warming despite a massive increase in CO2. Every govt mainlined climate leech has been searching for it and can't even get close.

That statistics don't lie but they can be manipulated, and even after manipulation that fact still stands.

I can drag out every scientific argument if you wish, but dont waste my time because if you have any interest whatsoever in this subject you will know I am correct. The IPCC has admitted it.

[Super Nova]

If these models predict that manmade warming will have devastating effects on the planet it will conclude we should take mitigation action not just adaption action - I think we need to be proactive and mitigate - I think we disagree.

No, because

a) The models are wrong

Models are always wrong when it comes to chaotic systems as you know. I do accept the models forecast a level of energy increase in our environment that did not translate to the temperature increases that were forecast.

I do expect the revised models that will be in the new report to be more accurate and the scientific community are really pulling together to make this as correct as is possible based on our renewed understanding and theories plus improved models.

I expect improved credibility in these new forecasts because they fucked up last time. this is not faith based it is human nature that they need to do a better job this time around.


b) the cost of mitigation is too great to mankind "if" manmade CO2 emissions are the culprit

The cost of adaption may be too great in the longer term if we end up in a run away green house effect. I think it is the easy option to say they are too great at this time. However I do except that we should hold fire until this new report comes out and we get a chance to really pull it apart. I look forward to that.

c) Its impossible to police

Not a good reason for doing SFA.

d) Carbon trading was an invention of the same guys who brought us the GFC

Do you mean the Global Financial Crisis?

e) You will never get all nations to comply

Now that is very interesting. I agree. however if the big boys agree and then it is in their interest, the UN will have the teeth to make them. Probably be the first time for a while to have a good reason for a war to take over a country.

f) Carbon emissions won't stop. They will be exported to nations with even less environmental policies

I agree that is just stupid. That's why carbon trading is just stupid.

c) Adaptation is cheaper by 50:1

In the short term only. (potentially)

You have bought into the faith of "catastrophic AGW", your faith is wrong and I will not pay for your faith.

back to the origin of your accusation.

I do not blindly have "faith" that leads me to just believe in the "catastrophic AGW". I have experienced that when the whole (the major majority) of the scientific community get together on a problem that their finding need to be respected. I will see for my self to the level I can understand and if they make sense to me I will in most circumstances buy into their conclusions and theories.

I have not experienced time dilation due to gravity but I do believe it is a real effect and they tell me it is key to my GPS being accurate. I understand the theory and believe it to be true because smarter people than me have said they have verified the theory.

I have not seen dark matter and can understand why they think they need it to explain the gravitational effects they see in the galaxies, does not match with the volume of matter they can see. I am convinced the theory of the universe is incomplete but for now I will buy into the notion there is dark matter/energy in the universe that we have not discovered. It provides an explanation to what we can observe however am not convinced that any one of the current theories is the reality.

I am not convinced it will be raining tomorrow morning as they forecast. I do believe there is a good probably it will be overcast and I should be prepared for rain. If it does not rain I do not disregard all future weather reports. It allowed me to take action to mitigate (my jacket or umbrella) rather than adapt (get wet or stand all morning under a tree).

I believe that the scientific process including peer review is a well understood and proven process when followed and everyone has an open mind. this is not faith based. It is based on my understanding of how the process works and the results delivered to date for humanity.

Now to the big point. What the political institutions do with this theory, models or forecasts is a completely different matter. Do not confuse what is done with this information and scientific conclusions.

If they project the SFA approach means the forecast impact and risk are high then we do nothing then we accept the risk and consequences. However if the mitigation options reduce the risk to this. then it is for the human society to take the appropriate action, if any. The information will be on the table. It is a valid risk decision to "accept the risk" and hope it does manifest itself. However putting at risk humanity's survival when it could be mitigated does not sound like prudent behaviour since our sole purpose for being is to procreate and ensure the survival of our species.

Risk management is about risk quantification and assessment. It about the probability of a risk and it's impact. It will define mitigation options and the cost of mitigation. If the impact is real high or bad quite often the right answer if to mitigation even if the probability is low. that is, you can not afford the impact. so we need to new report to see, don't we.

It is a bold assumption that we will be able to adopt to the worst case scenario and progress humanity potential destiny of being more than a smart, greedy monkey that shits in it's own nest and dies. that's what all other life does here.

I now accuse you of having blind faith in sciences ability to provide the solutions to allow local adaption rather than apply science to address the root cause. What if we end up like Venus.... adaption will mean fuck all and it will be too late (just to be extreme). What are you relying on to make this happen. oh.. it's science and technology. Well what if we cannot... then what.

So don't blame the science. Blame the politicians and vested interests groups who choose an action and implement it poorly and don't communicate clearly why it is necessary.

The quality and methods of the science and conclusions should be challenged. There will always be disbelievers. Our leadership need to make informed decisions based on the best information provided by those who have credibility.

[Super Nova]

elbow again.

replace this paragraph from post preceding.

If they project the SFA approach means the forecast impact and risks are too high and then we do nothing then we accept the risk and consequences. However if the mitigation options reduce the risk, then it is for the human society to take the appropriate action, if any. The information will be on the table. It is a valid risk decision to "accept the risk" and hope it does NOT manifest itself. However putting at risk humanity's survival when it could be mitigated does not sound like prudent behaviour since our sole purpose for being is to procreate and ensure the survival of our species.