Quote:My conclusion? That the climate is always changing getting both warmer and colder in various cyclical events? I thought that was a proven historical fact? Does anyone disagree with that?
Used to be all the continents were a single land mass. Used to be a lot of things. Plenty of stuff has changed over the years including the composition of the atmosphere.
But every time before the climate changed it was through natural processes.
This time, it is an artificial cause (human intervention) causing the climate to change.
There is a thing called the carbon cycle. What we have done is disrupt that natural cycle by taking carbon stored in trees and coal, etc and ejecting it out into the sky where it gets caught up in the atmosphere.
The sun's ray's project down through the atmosphere and bounce off the surface of the earth back into the atmosphere where a lot of the heat is trapped by the excess co2 via the greenhouse effect.
The warming occurring now simply wouldn't be happening if not for the excess co2 we have ourselves placed in the atmosphere (beyond the natural carbon cycle which is of course self-regulating).
So what we are doing has never happened before.
Just so you know.
Quote:I didn't say that. Peer review is more than a grammar check. It's also a check on the basics and to determine if the results are logical based on the knowledge of the reviewer. The peer reviewer might ask for a deeper explanation on some parts. As I said before, the one thing a peer reviewer is most likely to criticize is lack of references to previous works in the field, especially papers authored by the reviewer.
A peer reviewer only sees the paper, not the data or computer code behind the paper. The assumption is that the author was diligent in his data reduction techniques, or in the case of a computer model that the programming was correct. If the results agree with the opinions of the reviewer then the reviewer won't question the methods.
This leads to confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is a big problem in a field like <del>Global Warming</del> Climate Change. Results that agree with the prevailing dogma are not questioned, results that disagree are gone over with a fine tooth comb. Almost everyone in the field chose that branch of science in order to 'save the planet.' You don't join the priesthood if you don't believe in God to begin with.
It's been a couple years since I've read a paper from a peer reviewed journal... but from my recollection the methodology, data, equations used, thesis, and procedures are all provided in order for others in the community to recreate and verify or refute the paper. Over time, because all the data and equations are provided, the thesis is either validated or other studies are conducted to derive a more accurate model.
Again, you may not have said peer review is merely a grammar check, verbatim. But that is what you are implying, which again seems silly or that you assign far too little to a process that has created many advances in all levels of academia and science.
Quote:Used to be all the continents were a single land mass. Used to be a lot of things. Plenty of stuff has changed over the years including the composition of the atmosphere.
But every time before the climate changed it was through natural processes.
This time, it is an artificial cause (human intervention) causing the climate to change.
There is a thing called the carbon cycle. What we have done is disrupt that natural cycle by taking carbon stored in trees and coal, etc and ejecting it out into the sky where it gets caught up in the atmosphere.
The sun's ray's project down through the atmosphere and bounce off the surface of the earth back into the atmosphere where a lot of the heat is trapped by the excess co2 via the greenhouse effect.
The warming occurring now simply wouldn't be happening if not for the excess co2 we have ourselves placed in the atmosphere (beyond the natural carbon cycle which is of course self-regulating).
So what we are doing has never happened before.
Just so you know.
Seems pretty straightforward to me...
Quote:Go ahead and vett those agencies. I think you will be surprised they are actual science agencies doin actual science as opposed to right wing think tanks coming up with talking points in opposition of the science.
The reason NASA is working on this issue is fairly self-evident. What is goin on in the atmosphere (do you believe in that?) has a lot to do with global warming. Naturally, some of the brightest minds studying the atmosphere are at NASA. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (get it? get it?), to figure out the correlation.
But no, you're right, NASA is evil.
And they are all fudging their data. Cause you can do that. It's not like there is a process of peer review or a highly competitive market for getting published in these prestigious science journals whose credibility is necessarily contingent on the content of their pages.
You have a programming background. Can you fudge the data behind a program? Is that something that can happen? Or will the program simply not work correctly if not coded correctly? You can't lie via science. It's mostly math. All there in black and white. There is no where to fudge anything and furthermore no reason to.
While yes, I do have somewhat of a programming background, my actual occupation is more along the lines of electronics/electricity and computer networking (I have been skooled in many disciplines).
To answer your question, yes pretty much anything can be "fudged" when writing a program. Believe it or not, programming is all about logic and math.
As far as a "reason" to "fudge" anything, as I stated earlier... follow the money.
Quote:While yes, I do have somewhat of a programming background, my actual occupation is more along the lines of electronics/electricity and computer networking (I have been skooled in many disciplines).
To answer your question, yes pretty much anything can be "fudged" when writing a program. Believe it or not, programming is all about logic and math.
As far as a "reason" to "fudge" anything, as I stated earlier... follow the money.
I suggest you actually follow the money and see where that leads you.
Quote:My conclusion? That the climate is always changing getting both warmer and colder in various cyclical events? I thought that was a proven historical fact? Does anyone disagree with that?
That humans have no roll in it at all. You know exactly what I meant.
Quote:It's been a couple years since I've read a paper from a peer reviewed journal... but from my recollection the methodology, data, equations used, thesis, and procedures are all provided in order for others in the community to recreate and verify or refute the paper. Over time, because all the data and equations are provided, the thesis is either validated or other studies are conducted to derive a more accurate model.
Again, you may not have said peer review is merely a grammar check, verbatim. But that is what you are implying, which again seems silly or that you assign far too little to a process that has created many advances in all levels of academia and science.
Don't take my word for it. This is from Phil Jones, former head of CRU and a major player in the Global Warming Climate Change religion:
"The whole system would grind to a halt. I’ve never requested data/codes to do a review and I don’t think others should either. I do many of my reviews on travel.
I have a feel for whether something is wrong – call it intuition. If analyses don’t seem right, look right or feel right, I say so. Some of my reviews for CC could be called into question!"
Good to see that the Warmists are finally accepting that their "science" is really religion in drag.
Quote:Good to see that the Warmists are finally accepting that their "science" is really religion in drag.
That's exactly what happened! Spot on as usual.
Quote:Good to see that the Warmists are finally accepting that their "science" is really religion in drag.
Whatever makes you feel better
Quote:Good to see that the Warmists are finally accepting that their "science" is really religion in drag.
So would it be safe to call deniers the Bruce Jenner of science? :-)
Quote:If by 'deniers' you mean those who deny that climate can change without human influence, then yes.
Dude, but everyone knows climate can change without human influence. The problem is that some people are dragging (see what I did there?) their feet in accepting that humans also can have an influence. 6 Billion people. The world economy is driven by fossil fuels... All that extra energy going into the atmosphere has an impact over time. It seems pretty plausible to deduct that some of the changes that have been happening recently are caused by our consumption and use of these types of fuels.
Natural changes in climate happen over millenia. These recent changes appear to be happening faster than that. The ocean's currents are changing. Heck, I read that even the gulfstream that affects weather patterns in the USA is changing. These appear to me to be caused by all us 6 billion folks burning lots and lots of carbon. At the least, one should be able to admit that it has some effect, if not the entire driver.
Quote:Good to see that the Warmists are finally accepting that their "science" is really religion in drag.
Religion is when a person takes a position and then cherry picks facts to support that position, ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary. That's the definition of dogma/religion. Dig in your heels, ignore the evidence, ignore science when it conflicts with your dogma. I would ask the so-called denialists to seriously examine how they got to the conclusion that man made climate change is a mistake/hoax/untrue, in spite of almost every single major scientific organization saying man made climate change is a fact. What led you to believe politicians over scientists? What led you, Joe the Plumber, Jack the contractor, Jim the Realtor, to believe that you can refute something that thousands of scientists say is true? Or perhaps the question should be, who led you?
Quote:We don't have measurements on short term changes before thermometers were in use. The proxy measurements are averages over 50 or more years. When you look at thermometer measurements, the changes that happened between 1910 and 1940, before CO2 enrichment, are the same as those from 1980 to 2010.
CO2 has SOME effect. Nobody (well very few) disagree with this. All other things being equal, a doubling of CO2 will increase global temperature by 1.5 degrees C. The disagreement is in the 'other things.' The Warmists claim that 'other things' will amplify the warming (positive feedback). The skeptics claim that 'other things' will limit the warming (negative feedback).
I can lie on the internet too.
Quote:I can lie on the internet too.
Seriously? If you're gonna say he's lying, back it up with evidence. Don't just wave your magic wand