Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

[Oerets]

Just who created science?

One can believe in both science and Jesus, not one or the other.

[donquixote99]

Men created science. Science is a way of studying and understanding nature, created by men such as Laplace.

See a brief bio and discussion here: https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/...-a-hypothesis/

[Oerets]

When water freezes or vaporizes into steam, God does this?
Science is facts of nature, laws. God if one then created science, man just now is beginning to see and understand.
It is not one or the other.

[donquixote99]

My little point is that the facts and laws of nature are not science. Science is our way of uncovering and understanding those facts and laws, which apparently always existed.

How the facts and laws came to be, and why they are what they are, are questions that science really doesn't know much of anything about at this time.

Science works like this:
1. Carefully observe.
2. Reason from what is observed, and nothing else.

So the method isn't much good for unobserved stuff.

[Chicks]

Chuck Todd Refuses To Give Air Time To Climate Deniers: ‘The Science Is Settled’
“We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b05c88b701abd7

Whell and his idiot pals will have to get their fake news from Faux.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Chuck Todd Refuses To Give Air Time To Climate Deniers: ‘The Science Is Settled’
“We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b05c88b701abd7

Whell and his idiot pals will have to get their fake news from Faux.

Chuck Todd is qualified to make that assessment, of course, based in his extensive study of the climate and his advanced degrees in science that allow him to draw such supportable conclusions. Riiiiggggghhhhhttt.

Here's one of my "idiot pals". Nir J. Shaviv - He holds a doctorate (1996) in physics from the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. He spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the highly prestigious Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey (2014 — 2015). He is currently Professor and Chair of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Check out the results of his research, if you even have an open enough mind to do so:

http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate

Thus, it is no surprise that we find in our GSA Today paper that Cosmic Ray Flux variations appear to be the largest driver of climate change over geological time scales. However, one of the secondary conclusions we reach in the paper is that CO2 had only a secondary climate role over geological time scales, and that Earth's sensitivity to changes in the radiation budget is not as large as most of the climate community believes...

Or, maybe this "idiot": Richard Lindzen. He holds a PhD (1964) in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. The guy has a history of absolutely brilliant work, including solving a problem that had been discussed for over 100 years by some of the best minds in physics, including Lord Kelvin, namely, the physics of atmospheric tides (daily variations in global air pressure). He also has provided a theory that competes with the "consensus", and is a critic of the idea that "the science is settled".

There are more. But by simply suggesting that there might be room for continued debate on this idea, those who disagree draw the ire of (ahem) noted intellectual luminaries like (ahem) you, Chuck todd and AOC (how HAS she become the face of the Donkey party anyway???).

Its not "settled science". There's always room for debate. And the lack of willingness to debate and simply demonize those who might not agree that its "settled science", to me, underscores the need for concern and skepticism about those who are willing to push an agenda rather than discuss it.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Chuck Todd is qualified to make that assessment, of course, based in his extensive study of the climate and his advanced degrees in science that allow him to draw such supportable conclusions. Riiiiggggghhhhhttt.

Here's one of my "idiot pals". Nir J. Shaviv - He holds a doctorate (1996) in physics from the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. He spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the highly prestigious Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey (2014 — 2015). He is currently Professor and Chair of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Check out the results of his research, if you even have an open enough mind to do so:

http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate

Thus, it is no surprise that we find in our GSA Today paper that Cosmic Ray Flux variations appear to be the largest driver of climate change over geological time scales. However, one of the secondary conclusions we reach in the paper is that CO2 had only a secondary climate role over geological time scales, and that Earth's sensitivity to changes in the radiation budget is not as large as most of the climate community believes...

Or, maybe this "idiot": Richard Lindzen. He holds a PhD (1964) in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. The guy has a history of absolutely brilliant work, including solving a problem that had been discussed for over 100 years by some of the best minds in physics, including Lord Kelvin, namely, the physics of atmospheric tides (daily variations in global air pressure). He also has provided a theory that competes with the "consensus", and is a critic of the idea that "the science is settled".

There are more. But by simply suggesting that there might be room for continued debate on this idea, those who disagree draw the ire of (ahem) noted intellectual luminaries like (ahem) you, Chuck todd and AOC (how HAS she become the face of the Donkey party anyway???).

Its not "settled science". There's always room for debate. And the lack of willingness to debate and simply demonize those who might not agree that its "settled science", to me, underscores the need for concern and skepticism about those who are willing to push an agenda rather than discuss it.

There is always time for actual scientific debate, among good, rational, open-minded scientists. Among politicians, against the closed-minded committed-to-opposition deniers, it's pretty pointless. If you have the votes, do the right thing. If you don't, campaign to get them. That's it.

[Chicks]

’Faux & Friends’ Guest: Fossil Fuels ‘Actually Improve the Environment’

Sigh.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-an...he-environment

[Chicks]

White House Panel Will Study Whether Climate Change Is a National Security Threat. It Includes a Climate Denialist.

Sigh. A clown as ignorant as Whell on this panel. Results will be predictable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/c...ty-threat.html

[whell]

This is FASCINATING. Watching these poor kids, who have come to believe that "the Earth is dying" and that "scientists have said we have 12 years to turn this around" - the indoctrination is sad. "My grandparent's house burned down in the Paradise fire", and then the kids suggests its due to climate change. Then, the come toting the Green New Deal into DiFi's office, and they run smack into a "condescending" DiFi.

She blames the Repubs for blocking Senate action - failing to mention that the Dems had the majority a few times during her tenure.

But these kids are channelling the new face of the Dem party, Ms Ocasio - Cortez, and her "Green New Deal". After a while, even DiFi has enough of the alarm-ism.