Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent [W:437]

solletica said:

False. In 1714, Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer, which is still used today to accurately measuring temperature.

Thanks for proving how right wingers don't know anything about science

Click to expand...

solletica said:

We are--that's why we point out the ignorance of the conservative posters on science,

instead of stupidly trying to score smartie points, which is apparently what the OP did since he tried to talk about an issue he cannot even define in his own words.

Click to expand...

Nilly said:

Lol ok, so what you're saying is that even an institution that hates liberals thinks AGW is real. Why can't you get on board with that???

Even so, what does it matter if they hate liberals or conservatives? Climate change is a scientific ssue, not a political one.

Click to expand...

sawdust said:

I wish you were right. Liberals have taken up AGW as a cause. That cause is rooted not in scientific fact, but in belief that man and the internal combustion engine.are ruining the climate. Liberalism is attached to a political philosophy and belief is attached to religion so AGW has become politics, religion and science. Every externality is practiced by different individuals based on their position in society. Scientists are involved in the science of AGW, politicians are involved in taxes and the money associated with AGW and laymen are generally involved in the religious aspects of AGW. AGW may or may not be proved as a valid theory. Skeptics are willing to wait until science proves itself one way or the other. Believers found their beliefs on Pascal's Wager.

Click to expand...

Travis007 said:

Al Gore is a shill running a fraud

Click to expand...

solletica said:

Before you start frothing and foaming, explain to us, in your own words, what the global warming issue is all about.

Click to expand...

Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

Click to expand...

Nilly said:

It's a good job then that AGW has nothing to do with liberalism and everything to do with science.

As far as I'm concerned, scientists have a far better track record of not pulling stuff out of their asses than either liberal or conservative politicians.

Click to expand...

solletica said:

Really, explain to us exactly what Gore said about climate change that was fraudulent--explain it to us.

Click to expand...

Nilly said:

Except the cause is rooted in scientific fact.

Facts don't change, regardless of whether I'm conservative or liberal. What is political is the way that we approach and tackle these facts. That is where the dispute comes in. There is no one correct way to handle climate change. Scientists cannot predict the effect of human technology in the future, or of human response in the present.

That AGW is happening is clear cut. The ways we should deal with it is not.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

10 fact-checks about climate change | PolitiFact

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

It does ?

When the NOAA manipulated temperature data so they could claim that July 2012 was the hottest month on record that wasn't Science, it was fraud.

Global warming existing only in Computer models built on " Homogenized data " isnt Science either.

If the left sincerely cared about the Climate and the integrity of the Science thats used to try and understand it they would completely disconnect from the issue.

They're inclusion and outspoken representation has done more harm to the credibility of Climate research than any amount of opposition from people who thinks AGW is a scam.

Same with Alternative and renwable energy. Its been corrupted by a ideology that puts more value On Intent than they do results.

As a technology it can never be objectively valued as a viable alternative to Fossil fuels because the people who push it shout down any criticism based on a Political position and not on the quality and or feasibility of the product.

Because of that we wind up with debacles like Germanys Green revolution.

Click to expand...

solletica said:

That's what makes it a liberal issue, because conservatives do not know or care for science--that's been well-documented.

Click to expand...

solletica said:

We are--that's why we point out the ignorance of the conservative posters on science,

Click to expand...

instead of stupidly trying to score smartie points, which is apparently what the OP did since he tried to talk about an issue he cannot even define in his own words.

Click to expand...

Travis007 said:

I LOL when you use "fact"

Click to expand...

Nilly said:

Temperature data is not the only indicator of climate change. Irregardless, most of the claims about temperature manipulation are baseless.

As for renewable energy, that comes down to the solutions to climate change, which as I have said before, is not clear cut. I'm glad you brought it up though, because this is the discussion we should be having: 'What is the best way to deal with AGW?' instead of 'Is AGW real?'. Personally, I'm a large proponent of using nuclear energy as a replacement for renewables. Far more reliable with fewer intermittency issues.

Click to expand...

Nilly said:

Except the cause is rooted in scientific fact.

Facts don't change, regardless of whether I'm conservative or liberal. What is political is the way that we approach and tackle these facts. That is where the dispute comes in. There is no one correct way to handle climate change. Scientists cannot predict the effect of human technology in the future, or of human response in the present.

That AGW is happening is clear cut. The ways we should deal with it is not.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

10 fact-checks about climate change | PolitiFact

Click to expand...

Nilly said:

I LOL when the only argument you've put forward in this thread is 'NASA hates liberals'. As if it were somehow even relevant (or true) :roll:

Click to expand...

sawdust said:

The problem is that the facts aren't being accurately reported and 100% of the predictions and forecasting have been wrong. What is clear is that the planet is always heating or cooling. The only people who are wrong about climate are the ones that believe it will be or should be unchanging. With respect to mankind impact, it's doubtful that ten or twenty parts per million of C02 added to the atmosphere has as much impact as water vapor in the first twenty feet, cloud cover, the sun's radiation, the orbit of the earth around the sun and one of dozens of variables impacting climate.


Nasa by the way was just busted fudging it's numbers to fit the narrative. So did NOAA. Politifact is a liberal website run by the St. Pete Times, a left leaning paper.

Click to expand...

longview said:

I will give it a try!
Starting in the late 80's Scientist like Dr James Hanson starting predicting that the accepted
physics response to adding CO2 would be amplified through a collection of open loop feedbacks
to create catastrophic warming. While the direct response to doubling the CO2 level is generally
accepted, the amplified feedback is not, and have not been verified through the observed data.
The predictions went along ok, until 1998 when the observed data and the models sharply deviated.
Nature has a good article on the measurements.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment

The models predicted a continuation of the 0.21 °C per decade, while the actual data only showed
.04  °C per decade.
There has been much speculation of where the "missing" heat went, it is possible that the
predicted amplification simply does not exist at the predicted levels.

Click to expand...

Travis007 said:

all of it.. its complete nonsense....its wealth redistribution

Click to expand...

Travis007 said:

I LOL when you use "fact"

Click to expand...

solletica said:

Cite, where is the evidence? Explain.

Good 'ol travis--continually proving the case for right-wingers' lack of facts.

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

Yes, it's obvious the debate rages on and the models and predictions require constant modifications.

With that as fact, it also remains true the only solution being pushed involves the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, every human being on the planet change their lives, and a tacit agreement by all mankind to be subservient to a panel of unknown experts who will decide how they get to live life moving forward.

It's preposterous to believe such a scenario would not be met without extreme skepticism and resistance. Calling these billions who are skeptical names does nothing to forward the AGW agenda.

Click to expand...

Nilly said:

Temperature data is not the only indicator of climate change. Irregardless, most of the claims about temperature manipulation are baseless.

As for renewable energy, that comes down to the solutions to climate change, which as I have said before, is not clear cut. I'm glad you brought it up though, because this is the discussion we should be having: 'What is the best way to deal with AGW?' instead of 'Is AGW real?'. Personally, I'm a large proponent of using nuclear energy as a replacement for renewables. Far more reliable with fewer intermittency issues.

Click to expand...

solletica said:

You don't know anything about facts, because whenever we ask you to cite them to back up your rants, you never have any.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

Exactly, it is a major step in the right direction that many in the cult of AGW have even started admitting that the science is not, in fact, settled.

Click to expand...