Climate change explained

[Jasper711]

Originally Posted by Waco

Are you implying that reduced solar output is responsible for...the rise in temperatures?

Science isn't simple and easy to interpret by non-experts. So far, all evidence points to man-influenced global climate change.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8

[boracayjohnny]

Originally Posted by Waco

Are you implying that reduced solar output is responsible for...the rise in temperatures?

Science isn't simple and easy to interpret by non-experts. So far, all evidence points to man-influenced global climate change.

So, ummm, Mr Computer Geek, I didn't know you also had a PhD in one 'o dem hard sciences.

Fess up, what ya got.

[69camfrk]

Take this for what it's worth....

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...lly-everything

[OddBall]

I'm from a generation that remembers when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, and that whole nasty little mess with Love Canal.
Believe me, we know how bad it can get. And I don't think anyone is against good stewardship of the earth.

Without going into the "my facts vs your facts" argument, I'll explain what is wrong with the climate change theory. The problem and controversy lies with the quelling of scientific scrutiny and skepticism. Skepticism, one of the very cornerstones of science has literally been bullied out of the community. Labels such as "Deniers" are thrown at anyone who dares asks a question.

Let's take a look at Al Gore and an "Inconvenient Truth". Al Gore comes out of the gate with the absolute condescending attitude that if you don't believe him, then you are some kind of knuckle-dragging Neanderthal that cannot muster up the mental faculties needed to understand what dire peril the earth is in. He aims this at the young and naive who are always in need of a crusade. And a crusade he gives them. And since scrutiny should never get in the way of a crusade, he shuts down skepticism with time-honored bullying tactics, and replaces it with contempt and fear-mongering. Those of us with any age and wisdom on us, can see what is going on here. We've seen this game play out over the ages. You would have thought that when nothing he predicted happened, "climate warming" had to be changed to "climate change", and that the constant reports of data manipulation would have lead to an overhaul by the scientific community, but the politics were buried too deep, and the only thing that the scientific community policed at that point were any "wrong-thinking" members. Now you have nut-jobs like Bill Nye fanning the flames as hard as they can in a desperate attempt to claim relevancy. And then you have the Hollywood and liberal elite who also need someone to hate, and just love to sneer at the "Deniers".

Here's what has been lost in the debate;

Reason loses to passion. Trump pulled us out of a deal so idiotic, that it borders on the bizarre. And the left freaks out, and has a cry-fest.

The climate itself. The problem has to be defined before it can be corrected. And knee-jerk solutions are as worthless as knee-jerk hypothesis.

Scientific integrity. A dangerous precedent has been set that could spill over into other areas of science. "Shout down any honest debate" is becoming a standard.
Good scientists, that are good people, have taken the easy road out and they know it. Any of them that condemns a skeptic and labels them as a "denier" does not have the right to praise skepticism as a part of their scientific foundation. They have already willingly rejected it.

There is an old saying, "You get more bees with honey than with vinegar" The scientific community would be well advised to stop it's bullying, it's sneering condescending attitude, and it's self-righteous contempt of the masses.

[DAB]

Amen!

and they have been caught multiple times fiddling with their sacred evidence. adding and subtracting degrees of temperature, smoothing out bumps in the data, adding to the sea level (and not by peeing in it).

when i took experimental classes and gathered data to prove some idea, i never got data that was nice and smooth. it's the way it happens. you get bad input, noise, poor observations of the results. so when you see others "adjusting" the data, you know something is up.

they have been caught lying. they are liars. why should i trust them now? and they want me to believe some computer simulation of the weather, going forward 100s of years, but they won't share their source code, and they don't show that their model reflects reality (by starting their simulation in say 1900 and seeing if it matches history for the last 117 years.).

[boracayjohnny]

Originally Posted by Waco

I don't profess to be an expert, but I do work with many who are (many of whom are top of their field). I only have 2.5 degrees - CompE BS, MS, and half of a PhD.

So, you are just like us. An asshole with an opinion.

[Bill]

Look, we're all gonna die because of the recent tax cut package, so why worry about it?

Le bon temps roule!

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Waco

I don't profess to be an expert, but I do work with many who are (many of whom are top of their field). I only have 2.5 degrees - CompE BS, MS, and half of a PhD.

A Wacko with a degree in Digititus......?

Seariously though, you talk on same plane as my Son's wife....she into all that advanced top level Dig it all manipulation also.....

[Hoog]

Originally Posted by Waco

My day job is massive scale storage research, development, and administration. It's a hobby and a job, which makes it not really a job.

Seems like a lot of overhead...what do these scales weigh? Climate scientists are required to ensure they're stored so they stay in calibration?

[Sea Six]

Originally Posted by Hoog

Seems like a lot of overhead...what do these scales weigh? Climate scientists are required to ensure they're stored so they stay in calibration?

He's actually talking about storage of an entirely different type of scale.

It's the stuff that makes up the skin of large living creatures. They are stored away for "research" purposes, allegedly, although nobody ever comes around to use what they collect.

They then pretend to do climate change research in their off time, which is plentiful, in order to produce some pretense of work efforts so they can all keep their jobs.

It's pretty easy, really. They just look at data, recklessly chopping off any part that doesn't help their narrative, and reporting a very consistent stream of manufactured garbage. They also churn out page after page of code in the form of "climate change models" which contribute to their narrative in a remarkable manner.

You'd think they'd eventually get caught with their pants down editing data like that, saying things like "hide the decline" and such, but since the mainstream media is totally in the tank for the same narrative none of the voters really hear anything negative about the methods used in the research.

Some of those who should be smart enough to know better claim to be "in the know" about the "research" occasionally pop up to claim it's all legitimate, thus adding to the perceived accuracy of the crap that's being continually regurgitated so that a handful of "scientists" can keep their phoney-baloney jobs.

Hope this helps.

[boracayjohnny]

^^^^

Kinda like statistics, one can skew the data to get the desired results.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by Waco

My day job is massive scale storage ...

[boracayjohnny]

Originally Posted by Waco

While funny, totally nothing to do with anything in reality.

[OddBall]

^^^^^