So, is there an ocean temperature based model that shows the rise this video suggests should be occurring since that is where 96% of the climate change is occurring? If not, does not it put some doubt in his assertion that the inability of the air temp models to predict the past 10 years or so can be easily dismissed. If they exist, why are we not talking about them instead?
i am not a denier but am skeptical since the models and forecasts that fueled climate change believers to doom- monger, predict the end of Manhattan/Malibu as we know it, and call for a shortage of polar bears have not lived up to their billing. I would welcome newer data/models if they offered better predictions and could demonstrate the the senatorās āthe ocean is absorbing the heatā is more than conjecture. One would think that if such data existed, It would be the center of our discussions.
Not much really. The predictions generally come with error bars to deal with unknowns, and right now are reaching the lower limit of those bars. Also there is the temperature escalator, plus lots of thermal energy appearing in the ocean - and it is - doesnāt exactly undermine the idea it is increasing in general.
All of which means the models should be improved rather than that they failed. But hey, I can see wanting to do better, and as a skeptic you would have looked for alternatives. So what better models have you found? Becuse for all such complaints about AGW, Iāve never seen any accurate predictions without it at all.
Not really even attempts at them, which speaks to how much real skepticism is out there.
Itās from documentary āScience Under Attackā and the clip Iāve jumped to shows the host visiting NASA where they have side by side screens, one showing actual weather observations and the other shows what the models predict the weather should look like. The two are undeniably similar. The dude from NASA also puts it this way, which best defines how science sees the issue:
āWe measure scientific progress in our ability to reduce the uncertainties, and by that measure weāre making extraordinary progressā
Almost good enough to get a tattoo of, so every time someone chimes in with āThanks sciencebama, your prediction was only within the range you suggested it would be, not at the high end of the range. You must be wrong!ā I can just point at the tattoo. I probably need some of these too:
Also, The Spice Girls. The Spice Girls! What about the Spice Girls? Who cares? Spice Girls.
It seems to me that we are long past the point where attempts to present things like factual data in the Senate can be expected to accomplish anything. (Certainly, itās easy enough to pass off the actions of Coke and Pepsi and so on as pandering to the market.)
I think that their reasoning in the long term, it that its cheaper to wait for 4-5 billion people to die due to climate change related reasons, (all you got to do is bury them), rather than take action that would have to change the current paradigm.
Besides if you belong at the part of the population in charge, you dont really care. You have the money to relocate, or do whatever necessary to āsurviveā unlike the rest. Hence climate deniers are born!
Exactly. The wealthy and powerful leaders donāt care what they do to the environment or to the economy, since they have the resources (all safely invested offshore) to go wherever it is most convenient.
I pity the poor, working-class sap who thinks they really represent or care about him or her.
Of course climate denying has nothing at all to do with science. They get a few shills (or hapless gullibles) to nit pick and obfuscate so it appears there is scientific controversy, but there isnāt.
The question is one of policy making and the prudent thing to do, of course, would be to begin doing something about climate change. But, as usual, when comes down to a choice between people or wealth, the Republicans always, always, always vote for protecting entrenched wealth. Delaying lines the pockets of big oil and, like many corporations, itās only next quarter theyāre worried about, not next century.
Sadly, weāll be arguing this same BS in gas masks in a hundred years.
If wingnuts are so interested in scientific controversy, why did they pick climate change to get their grundies in a bunch about? Purely out of scientific curiosity? Why not say some other real scientific controversy like string theory?
Someone could make up a whole bunch of totally bogus crap about String Theory and nobody would ever know. Have you seen the actual theories/math they work with?
Well, you wonāt really see any of the actual math in that video. Like I said on its previous thread, thatās a legitimate piece of mathematics - CesĆ ro summation - obscured by an illegitimate description. There is lots to criticize in string theory, but far from the point where even the basic math is revealed as obvious nonsense after sleeping through half a calculus lecture.
Researchers make mistakes and go down wrong paths, but I wish people would stop assuming theyāre all incomprehensibly stupid compared to the average internet poster. We already have climate science deniers who do that, letās please not add more.
Once I found the Wiki that explained what was really going on it made a lot more sense (he found the y intercept at 0 for a slope defined by the summation), but that guy could have just about explained anything and it would have sounded just as credible.
Climate change threatens the profits of the big oil companies
Big oil companies keep their politicians in business
Therefore those politicians need to keep pretending thereās scientific controversy
Since weāre now in a permanent us-vs-them ideology on every single position or fact under the sun, if my party is against X (or the other party is for X) then I am against X
This leads to millions of people who have absolutely no science grounding in the subject all of a sudden have very strong entrenched opinions on it
