Two words: Peer. Review. If you're really a phD, you should know that there is no science without peer review. The IPCC reports are heavily peer reviewed. The crackpot stuff you're referencing is not peer reviewed at all.
One person looking at one graph, out of context, among tens of thousands of others is not peer review. That's just somebody's uninformed opinion.
I'm sad that somebody who supposedly has as much education as you is getting sucked into garbage fake science online, while ignoring the science of tens of thousands of real scientists. That's a real shame. Your education could be put to good use doing something good, instead of repeating conspiracy theories and fake science on the Net. Your perfunctory "analysis" of one of the most complex systems that we know is based on cherry-picked data that isn't even relevant (or real), and your choice to completely ignore peer-review is bizarre.
Yes, I choose to throw up my hands instead of trying to argue with you, just like I don't try to argue with a madman ranting on a street corner.
I don't know what has happened to you that has warped your mind so badly, but I wish you all the best.
Climate is the measure of average weather over a period of about 30 years. That's the scientific definition of the term.
There are many models because it's a very complicated system. Very very complicated. Different models are used to measure different things, and they do so in different ways. The models are then averaged together, and they *do* accurately fit past climate patterns, which means they're likely to fit future ones as well.
The charts that you're linking to are irrelevant. The first one is from some conspiracy theorist. The second I don't even understand, or know where it's from. What does "structural uncertainty in mid-troposphere satellite temperatures" mean? What does it prove?
You should consider taking a class or several science classes to understand the scientific process, and how to think critically. You're so far away from understanding actual science that I don't even know where to tell you to start. Maybe start with your *accredited* local community college and take some basic "what is science" classes.
First off, the IPCC models are quite sound. I have no data to post because I haven't done any experiments. I've read other peoples' experiments, but I haven't read all ~20-30k and neither have you. That's why the IPCC exists.
Einstein's theory, or any other valid scientific theory, is not going to be disproven by a crackpot with a website and too much time on his hands. They can be disproven by carefully thought out, peer-reviewed experiments. And considering something with as many variables as climate change, there will not be one experiment that can prove or disprove anything. That's not science. Anybody who claims to have "one fact" that will disprove a system as complicated as the entire Earth's climate, is fucking crazy and fucking wrong. That's simply not possible.
So no, it's not worth my time to discuss one crackpot's idea that supposedly disproves tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies. I don't know enough about the entire Earth's climate system to even begin. Neither do you. Neither does whoever you're saying is this brilliant mastermind. It's not simple enough for a single person to understand the billions and billions and billions pieces of data in all of the tens of thousands of experiments. That's why the IPCC consists of many, many scientists working together. It's a massive, massive system that requires massive amounts of data and thought to understand. The idea that "oh, here, you missed a sign" is somehow going to discredit all of that work is insane. It doesn't even make any sense.
If you want to somehow believe that you know better than tens of thousands of scientists because you read a blog and watched a youtube video, best of luck to you.
I'm taking a class that looks at climate change now, with lots of time spent on the IPCC reports. I do know what I'm talking about. I don't need to take time to explain why every crazy person is crazy. There's massive consensus with tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies. If that's not enough for you, then you either don't understand science, which is not something that can be taught on a message board, or you are maliciously trying to spread lies.
You don't know what you're talking about. I don't have the time to explain it all to you.
More importantly, do you really believe that tens of thousands of scientists have come together, collectively, to create the largest conspiracy in the history of the world (for no apparent reason), and only a few of these random nuts on the Net know the *truth*? That's insane in and of itself.
"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."
He's a fucking nut.
But yeah, go ahead and buy into what one Jesus/Limbaugh guy says, as opposed to the tens of thousands of other scientists. That seems like a really great idea. Best of luck with that.
Hmm... should I believe some random person's crazy conspiracy theories, or the work of tens of thousands of scientists.... hmmm.... that's a tough one.
Ok, dude. Take your youtube.wikipedia data analysis and show the IPCC, which consists of tens of thousands of studies from hundreds of thousands of scientists over decades, and tell them you figured it all out. Go right ahead. You're fucking Einstein.
You have linked to a youtube video, Wikipedia, and have referenced a scientific article that doesn't exist. You've presented nothing worthy of arguing intelligently about. If you have something of any scientific merit to discuss, I haven't seen it yet. I'll again suggest that you start here: http://ipcc.ch/ and read some of the tens of thousands of real scientific studies.
I disagree. When somebody is stating something that's clearly wrong, and that thing they're stating can and will harm people, good people have an obligation to call them out as being "wrong". I'm not going to pussyfoot around with morons saying, "climate change is fake" based on nothing. This is a real thing. It's a very real threat to humanity. I'm going to continue to call out liars as liars. I'm going to continue to call out idiots and idiots.
And by the way, "theory" the way scientists use it is very different than the way non-scientists (such as yourself) use it.
Science doesn't depend on anything in particular to be true. That's how science works. We try to figure out what is true. Nobody is paying scientists to prove something or another.
That's not how scientific models work. If models can fit the facts, then the models are effective. Climate models absolutely do fit the facts.
Did you not learn what "science" is in grade school? How can somebody be so clueless about something as fundamental as what science is?
Youtube videos are for music videos and conspiracy theorists. I'm not wasting my time commenting on garbage. Point to a study or collection of studies that you can discuss like an intelligent person, or fuck off. You're just one random non-scientist playing scientist with some crackpot theories, youtube videos, and wikipedia articles. I assume you think you're also a medical doctor because you can clip your own toenails, right? Are you a musician because you have a car radio, too?
You're 100% wrong (or simply lying). They're pretty damned accurate, actually. If you have any real interest, you should look into the IPCC. Here's a high level overview: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf...
I don't go to Youtube for science, thanks. I'm not qualified to analyze raw data from somebody else's experiment, and neither are you, clearly. Since you don't know how to cite a study, and the title you're referring to doesn't exist, I can only assume that you're referring to this study, which has a similar title: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
There is no "Mann" in this study, so whatever youtube stuff you're referring to is irrelevant.
Even if you did completely understand this study (which make no reference of man-made effects on climate change), this is one study of tens of thousands reviewed by the IPCC. There is no one study that can prove or disprove such a massive system as the Earth's climate. "Gotcha!" isn't how science works. You're describing the Jerry Springer show, maybe.
If you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to just stop commenting so that you don't make yourself look more stupid than you already do.
The climate models only work when man-made inputs are included. Without man-made inputs, the climate models are very different (ie: wrong after ~1970).
You're simply lying about climate change. It's 100% real and man made. The climate models that predict the change only work when man-made interference is included. You have no idea what you're talking about. There have been hundreds of thousands of studies that have been included just in the IPCC's reviews, so far. I have no idea what one study you're talking about, and I'm sure you don't, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Two words: Peer. Review. If you're really a phD, you should know that there is no science without peer review. The IPCC reports are heavily peer reviewed. The crackpot stuff you're referencing is not peer reviewed at all.
One person looking at one graph, out of context, among tens of thousands of others is not peer review. That's just somebody's uninformed opinion.
I'm sad that somebody who supposedly has as much education as you is getting sucked into garbage fake science online, while ignoring the science of tens of thousands of real scientists. That's a real shame. Your education could be put to good use doing something good, instead of repeating conspiracy theories and fake science on the Net. Your perfunctory "analysis" of one of the most complex systems that we know is based on cherry-picked data that isn't even relevant (or real), and your choice to completely ignore peer-review is bizarre.
Yes, I choose to throw up my hands instead of trying to argue with you, just like I don't try to argue with a madman ranting on a street corner.
I don't know what has happened to you that has warped your mind so badly, but I wish you all the best.
They don't need social media. There will be protests anywhere that that piece of filth goes that isn't a Klan rally.
Climate is the measure of average weather over a period of about 30 years. That's the scientific definition of the term.
There are many models because it's a very complicated system. Very very complicated. Different models are used to measure different things, and they do so in different ways. The models are then averaged together, and they *do* accurately fit past climate patterns, which means they're likely to fit future ones as well.
The charts that you're linking to are irrelevant. The first one is from some conspiracy theorist. The second I don't even understand, or know where it's from. What does "structural uncertainty in mid-troposphere satellite temperatures" mean? What does it prove?
You should consider taking a class or several science classes to understand the scientific process, and how to think critically. You're so far away from understanding actual science that I don't even know where to tell you to start. Maybe start with your *accredited* local community college and take some basic "what is science" classes.
First off, the IPCC models are quite sound. I have no data to post because I haven't done any experiments. I've read other peoples' experiments, but I haven't read all ~20-30k and neither have you. That's why the IPCC exists.
Einstein's theory, or any other valid scientific theory, is not going to be disproven by a crackpot with a website and too much time on his hands. They can be disproven by carefully thought out, peer-reviewed experiments. And considering something with as many variables as climate change, there will not be one experiment that can prove or disprove anything. That's not science. Anybody who claims to have "one fact" that will disprove a system as complicated as the entire Earth's climate, is fucking crazy and fucking wrong. That's simply not possible.
So no, it's not worth my time to discuss one crackpot's idea that supposedly disproves tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies. I don't know enough about the entire Earth's climate system to even begin. Neither do you. Neither does whoever you're saying is this brilliant mastermind. It's not simple enough for a single person to understand the billions and billions and billions pieces of data in all of the tens of thousands of experiments. That's why the IPCC consists of many, many scientists working together. It's a massive, massive system that requires massive amounts of data and thought to understand. The idea that "oh, here, you missed a sign" is somehow going to discredit all of that work is insane. It doesn't even make any sense.
If you want to somehow believe that you know better than tens of thousands of scientists because you read a blog and watched a youtube video, best of luck to you.
I'm taking a class that looks at climate change now, with lots of time spent on the IPCC reports. I do know what I'm talking about. I don't need to take time to explain why every crazy person is crazy. There's massive consensus with tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies. If that's not enough for you, then you either don't understand science, which is not something that can be taught on a message board, or you are maliciously trying to spread lies.
You don't know what you're talking about. I don't have the time to explain it all to you.
More importantly, do you really believe that tens of thousands of scientists have come together, collectively, to create the largest conspiracy in the history of the world (for no apparent reason), and only a few of these random nuts on the Net know the *truth*? That's insane in and of itself.
Use your brain.
Scientists can be crazy people, too.
"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."
He's a fucking nut.
But yeah, go ahead and buy into what one Jesus/Limbaugh guy says, as opposed to the tens of thousands of other scientists. That seems like a really great idea. Best of luck with that.
Well, there you go. One crazy guy's view (who thinks that evolution is fake) invalidates the work of tens of thousands of scientists. I'm convinced.
Hmm... should I believe some random person's crazy conspiracy theories, or the work of tens of thousands of scientists.... hmmm.... that's a tough one.
That doesn't make any sense, AC. Troll harder.
Ok, dude. Take your youtube.wikipedia data analysis and show the IPCC, which consists of tens of thousands of studies from hundreds of thousands of scientists over decades, and tell them you figured it all out. Go right ahead. You're fucking Einstein.
It's nowhere near that simple.
You have linked to a youtube video, Wikipedia, and have referenced a scientific article that doesn't exist. You've presented nothing worthy of arguing intelligently about. If you have something of any scientific merit to discuss, I haven't seen it yet. I'll again suggest that you start here: http://ipcc.ch/ and read some of the tens of thousands of real scientific studies.
Or just stick to youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Do you "remember" that in the same way the Orange Asshole "remembers" people celebrating in the streets when the WTC came down?
I disagree. When somebody is stating something that's clearly wrong, and that thing they're stating can and will harm people, good people have an obligation to call them out as being "wrong". I'm not going to pussyfoot around with morons saying, "climate change is fake" based on nothing. This is a real thing. It's a very real threat to humanity. I'm going to continue to call out liars as liars. I'm going to continue to call out idiots and idiots.
And by the way, "theory" the way scientists use it is very different than the way non-scientists (such as yourself) use it.
Science doesn't depend on anything in particular to be true. That's how science works. We try to figure out what is true. Nobody is paying scientists to prove something or another.
That's not how scientific models work. If models can fit the facts, then the models are effective. Climate models absolutely do fit the facts.
Did you not learn what "science" is in grade school? How can somebody be so clueless about something as fundamental as what science is?
Yes. Tens of thousands. The most recent one, alone, looked at 9200 different studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report).
Youtube videos are for music videos and conspiracy theorists. I'm not wasting my time commenting on garbage. Point to a study or collection of studies that you can discuss like an intelligent person, or fuck off. You're just one random non-scientist playing scientist with some crackpot theories, youtube videos, and wikipedia articles. I assume you think you're also a medical doctor because you can clip your own toenails, right? Are you a musician because you have a car radio, too?
You're 100% wrong (or simply lying). They're pretty damned accurate, actually. If you have any real interest, you should look into the IPCC. Here's a high level overview: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf...
I don't go to Youtube for science, thanks. I'm not qualified to analyze raw data from somebody else's experiment, and neither are you, clearly. Since you don't know how to cite a study, and the title you're referring to doesn't exist, I can only assume that you're referring to this study, which has a similar title: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
There is no "Mann" in this study, so whatever youtube stuff you're referring to is irrelevant.
Even if you did completely understand this study (which make no reference of man-made effects on climate change), this is one study of tens of thousands reviewed by the IPCC. There is no one study that can prove or disprove such a massive system as the Earth's climate. "Gotcha!" isn't how science works. You're describing the Jerry Springer show, maybe.
If you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to just stop commenting so that you don't make yourself look more stupid than you already do.
Dummy, there have been tens of thousands of studies, and 99.9% of them all agree. It's not a conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of scientists.
The climate models only work when man-made inputs are included. Without man-made inputs, the climate models are very different (ie: wrong after ~1970).
We've probably already reached the tipping point, stupid.
You're simply lying about climate change. It's 100% real and man made. The climate models that predict the change only work when man-made interference is included. You have no idea what you're talking about. There have been hundreds of thousands of studies that have been included just in the IPCC's reviews, so far. I have no idea what one study you're talking about, and I'm sure you don't, either.