Mar 23
I trust scientific estimates of past global temperatures much more than I do “scientific” estimates of future climate. What the above chart shows is that temperatures varied extremely over the last 12,000 years when there was no human industrial involvement in the environment. If anything, we should be due for an ice age soon.
The average temperate was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, ranging as high as 60.8 and as low as 51.
Tons of other Global Warming dispelling charts can be found here.
Global warming is a scam folks. Remember it is brought to you buy the same people that Ponzied you with Social Security and Mortgage Insurance.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
In a time series, data from the past can be extrapolated to the future only if conditions remain the same. If conditions have changed substantially, one needs a model, that explains the relationship between the past data and conditions, and that can be applied to the new and future conditions. Science has discovered enough facts about the past conditions, and has well studied the laws of physics that affect climate, to construct an approximate climate model. The people who don’t like the answers that the model and its several variants produce spend a lot of energy looking for flaws without judging the practical effect of the flaws. Modelers systematically do test the sensitivity of their models to variants in the unknowns and report those sensitivities as a normal part of scientific publication. One necessary condition for acceptance of the model is that it reproduces the entire history of the climate within reasonable bounds.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Ha ha. You make me laugh. You believe the future models made up by scientists with grants and politics on their minds.
I doubt any of the models produce the entire history of climate. I doubt they try.
Ha.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:11 am
If you believe that science does not adhere to a discipline of intellectual rigor, why do you take highly profitable medications that have been developed by large pharmaceutical companies, and sometimes reviewed or researched by researchers who consult for the companies, and then convince doctors by various inducements to prescribe them to paying patients? Are doctors angels and climate scientists devils?
If you believe that science is so motivated by personal gain that it ignores the basic tenets of science, how do you decide what to believe?
March 26th, 2009 at 11:17 am
THe situations are similar, but I can see if the drug works.
Scientists are human. And scientists that have entered environmental sciences have largely come in with an agenda. They aren’t to be trusted.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am
And how do you know that the drug won’t kill or maim you with side effects that have been hidden in unpublished reports or that had not time to develop in the clinical trials?
What do you offer as proof of your assertion that environmental scientists (which covers a wide range of disciplines) have no integrity? Answers that you don’t like does not constitute evidence of malfeasance. And be careful to name any of them unless you want to defend a libel suit.
Why is a scientist who loves his profession any different from a software company CEO when it comes to interpreting, developing, and publishing evidence?
March 26th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I don’t. It is a risk I decide for myself. Not something forced on me, unlike what these wacko’s want to do with their “science”.
Nature magazine, when I had a subscription, had studies of the politics of environmental scientists. They were universially liberal and most admitted (in private) that their political goals and interests had drawn them to the field.
People can try my software for free, as long as they like, and then decide to buy it. Where can I opt out of the wacky crap Al Gore and the other lefties want to force on us?
THis shoudl be obvious. Try to think from another perspective rather than just throwing up debate points and tactics. They don’t work.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
and why must I prove they are wrong? They are the ones that want to radically change our life and freedoms. They should prove they are right, and they aren’t even close. Most are wrong, and there is a model to “prove” just about every possible scenario.
That plus political contamination makes this field of study largely unbelievable.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
A standard in our system is the accuser has the burden of proof.
A correlation between liberal political leanings and scientific results that you don’t like is merely a correlation. Equally, correlations no doubt exist between financiers and conservative political leanings; but neither correlation proves dishonesty. I didn’t hear you complain that the financial modelers were dishonest when they produced a disaster.
I suspect that the climate modelers get more public challenge of their results than do the financial modelers; which may be one reason why their errors went undetected.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
No. They want us to change, so prove it. You flip the whole setup. Wrong.