North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 2015

[Rockie]

And cultural Marxism. Don't leave that out.

[photofly]

Except in your case it's a little more than that. It seems your personal hatred of a mere man forces your brain to reject scientific argument. Correct me if I'm wrong and tell me the real reason.

Suzuki? A "mere man"???! How dare you!

The scientific arguments as you call them, are wide ranging inferences drawn from some very tentative mathematical models that are run through computers again and again adjusted each time to match the results people are looking for. I think the whole process is very prone to the Sharpshooter's fallacy. So I don't trust the predictions that come out of these models very much.

Unfortunately the weak science has now been built into a huge political bandwagon whose proponents mock and dismiss anyone who doesn't follow their views. ("Burn her! she's a witch!").

[B208]

Science thinks it's a reality because they do have the evidence....

You're anthropomorphising. Science does not think. It is a philosophy used by people to build up an accurate mental model of the physical world. It results in a ever malleable body of knowledge. Science, as applied by individuals, can result in different explanations and predictions based on the same data. That is what we are seeing here. What makes global warming unique is that politicians and activists, some of the most scientifically ignorant people, have attached themselves to one side of a scientific argument and are working to supress all dissent.

[B208]

And cultural Marxism. Don't leave that out.

Sorry Dude, but this really isn't a manifestation of cultural Marxism.

[Rockie]

The scientific arguments as you call them, are wide ranging inferences drawn from some very tentative mathematical models that are run through computers again and again adjusted each time to match the results people are looking for.

The science is based on observations and measurements. The predictions are based on mathematical models that have proven to be expectedly inaccurate. Some have wildly overstated based on actual results, and some have wildly understated based on actual results. Sea level rise is real, not based on models. Ocean acidification is real, not based on models. Ice reduction is real, based on measurements and the fact oceans rise for some reason. CO2 level measurements both current and historical cannot be argued with nor explained away by any other cause. It goes on and on.

These aren't my measurements or my science, but I'd love to watch you present your arguments in front of whose they are. That surgical deconstruction would be entertaining to watch.

Sorry Dude, but this really isn't a manifestation of cultural Marxism.

Darn. Well...I'm sure you'll find something.

[Strobes]

I didn't bother reading the 8 pages - lol - of debate, but let's get a few facts straight. I am climate-change neutral, btw.

The absolute worst prediction of sea level rise between now at 2050 is 5cm. So no water up to the armpits, like many would like us to believe.

In the 1970's, main stream media talked about Global Cooling - Big Oil wanted you to burn more oil to stay warm!

Let's chat again in 2030 after the upcoming Maunder Minimum. I'm sure we'll have another major volcanic eruption between now and then that will depress global temperature for a few years too.

[photofly]

These aren't my measurements or my science, but I'd love to watch you present your arguments in front of whose they are. That surgical deconstruction would be entertaining to watch.

Actually it's up to them to convince me. Not convinced so far.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/16 ... _34_years/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/21 ... _in_1980s/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/12 ... ing_pause/

[rxl]

All very interesting and can't argue with most of what you say, but we don't live our lives at the quantum level. We have to deal with "classical" realities - ie. if you step off of a 200' cliff, the science predicts within useful accuracy on what will happen next.
Is man made global warming a reality?
The UN and world leadership seem to think so.

Changed it a bit

Call it whatever you want - "prediction within useful accuracy" or "settled science" - the result of stepping off of a 200' cliff will be the same - you WILL accelerate at 10 m/s/s towards the centre of the earth until meeting the surface. Maybe this is why reasonable people who live in the real world assume responsibility for their own actions and take a step back from that cliff.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Please do not edit my posts.

[digits_]

I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that the "settled science" as you called it, is not settled at all. You might be able to predict the acceleration, but it won't be exact. We don't know exactly how all those atoms moving through/against each other work, so there might be very small forces that affect, or not affect the fall. You will also not exactly be able to calculate where the body will fall. The cliff is undoubtably not a straight drop, even though the physics calculations will assume it is. Wind will affect it in different ways.

Now all those small errors will maybe give, what, a 0.1%, 1%, 5%, 10% error in where you will land and with which speed, depending on the model you use. But still, even in such a small an straightforward "problem" we do not know *exactly* what goes on. The biggest question of all there isn't even answered actually: WHY do we fall down. What causes the gravity. Is it constant during the fall (spoiler alert: it isn't) ?

All this to point out that we can't even calculate this easy thing very exactly. Only that you will most likely die, And not even that is certain. So imagine how accurate the predictions are for temperature rise. Or the assumptions/theories/"facts" what causes said rises. A lot of papers on this subject start with different assumptions and different models. And for most of them, well given those assumptions and models, what they claim is true. The issue is finding reliable assumptions and accurate models. For that , we don't have enough data. Climate is defined by (i believe) changes in temperature averaged over a 25 year period. We started measuring reliably what, 50 years ago?

[Rockie]

Using "science" scientists can reliably measure all kinds of things going back hundreds of thousands of years including climate conditions, ice amounts and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. They can also accurately measure how much CO2 is natural and how much we humans pump into the atmosphere. The causes of atmospheric warming and its effects on land and sea are no mystery. The difficult part to do reliably is predict what will happen in any one specific area in the future because the climate and oceans are a complex thing.

But what's happened and why is no longer in dispute except by people who don't know what they're talking about or have an interest in protecting carbon based energy. Sure, it's not "settled" 100% as people like to say, but as many point out almost nothing in science ever is. Yet here we are using that science in everyday life regardless. Relativity is only one of countless examples.

The planet is warming, oceans are rising and becoming acidified, ice caps are melting at alarming speeds and sea ice is disappearing (yes, I know there are always local examples to the contrary but I'm talking overall). There is a reason for this happening and the only one scientists can attribute it to is human activity. There is a smoking gun but not if you refuse to look at it.

[photofly]

Using "science" scientists can reliably measure all kinds of things going back hundreds of thousands of years including climate conditions

Scientists have all sorts of techniques for reliably measuring lots of things that can be reliably measured but it's extremely difficult (for which, read, unreliable, subjective, and with a lot of hidden assumptions and guess-work) to relate those measureable things to something called "climate".

[B208]

There is a reason for this happening and the only one scientists can attribute it to is human activity.

So, how did the Earth transit in and out of it's many pervious ice ages previous to the arrival of humans?

[Rockie]

There is a reason for this happening and the only one scientists can attribute it to is human activity.

So, how did the Earth transit in and out of it's many pervious ice ages previous to the arrival of humans?

I have no idea, but I'm sure science knows. CO2 levels have been rising precipitously since man started using fossil fuels and razing forests which has been proven. No other cause has been identified which should be pretty easy given the rate of increase. No mass volcanic activity, no mass amounts of CO2 burbling up from the ocean...nothing. It's not like they aren't looking either. So if you're aware of something causing it that they aren't perhaps you should tell them.

Otherwise why not admit they know more about this than you and stop pretending that they don't?

[hoptwoit]

I have no idea, but I'm sure science knows. CO2 levels have been rising precipitously since man started using fossil fuels and razing forests which has been proven. No other cause has been identified which should be pretty easy given the rate of increase. No mass volcanic activity, no mass amounts of CO2 burbling up from the ocean...nothing. It's not like they aren't looking either. So if you're aware of something causing it that they aren't perhaps you should tell them.

Otherwise why not admit they know more about this than you and stop pretending that they don't?

Definition Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Careful this is starting to sound like a religious experience!

This was on the National news last night. So I looked it up.

"Settled" science was totally wrong yet again: Cholesterol in foods does not cause heart disease
Potentially reversing almost 40 years of government policy, the top nutrition advisory board for the United States has dropped its warning against dietary cholesterol. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee concluded that no evidence supports a link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease.

Even five years ago, the committee was still promoting the warning first popularized by the American Heart Association in 1961. But the new position has been a long time coming.

"There's been a shift of thinking," said Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health. He called the committee's decision to drop the cholesterol warning a "reasonable move."

New scientific consensus

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee provides science-based recommendations to the federal government, in the form of a publication called "Dietary Guidelines." The government uses that publication to make decisions about everything including dietary advice (such as the food pyramid), school lunch content and food labeling policy.

In its new recommendations, the committee has embraced the emerging scientific consensus that consuming cholesterol in foods such as eggs, shrimp or lobster does not significantly increase blood levels of cholesterol in healthy adults, and does not increase the risk of heart disease. That's because the body actually produces its own cholesterol, in levels much higher than those that can realistically come from food.

The new consensus warns instead against a diet too high in saturated fat, the nutrient the body uses to make cholesterol. High levels of LDL ("bad") cholesterol in the blood are still considered a risk factor for heart disease.

The change in policy is a classic example of the way that nutrition guidelines continue to change as scientific understanding evolves -- often greatly confusing consumers along the way. Although the cholesterol debate may soon be settled, nutrition researchers continue to debate the relative merits and risks of other foods and nutrients such as saturated fat, salt, red meat, sugar and omega-3s.

"Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome," nutrition science critic and Stanford University professor John P.A. Ioannidis wrote. "In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?"

Based on faulty science

The idea that cholesterol causes heart disease is pervasive in U.S. culture. Indeed, the adoption of cholesterol warnings directly led to a drop in per capita egg consumption of about 30 percent. But the scientific case for such a warning was never strong.

The experiment that started it all was conducted in 1913 by Niokolai Anitschkov and colleagues at the Czar's Military Medicine Institute in St. Petersburg. The researchers fed rabbits cholesterol and saw that the animals developed cardiovascular disease.

Later research showed that rabbits are one of the few animals on the planet that react to dietary cholesterol in this way. But the idea had seized hold of the scientific establishment, and further studies at first seemed to support a link between cholesterol and heart disease.

But there were always those who considered the evidence against dietary cholesterol to be weak. In 2013, a task force convened by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a warning against the nutrient. Many of the studies done were too broad in scope to be useful, it said.

"Looking back at the literature, we just couldn't see the kind of science that would support dietary restrictions," said task-force co-chair Robert Eckel, of the University of Colorado.

Indeed, all other countries on Earth have long since stopped warning against dietary cholesterol.

"The U.S. is the last country in the world to set a specific limit on dietary cholesterol," said nutrition scientist David Klurfeld, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Some of it is scientific inertia."


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048941_chole ... z3wgBsDD00

I am actually quite impressed to see that the majority of people posting here are stopping and taking a closer look at the information fed to them. It would seem that people are quite capable of thinking for themselves and that is good news.

[Rockie]

Equating science and religion is absurdly ridiculous, and you use science all day, every day with no understanding of it or the research and evidence behind it. Rejecting climate science on that basis is either flagrantly hypocritical or a lie. I think it's a lie.

The real reason for most of you is ideological, or you are just childishly susceptible to the fossil fuel industry's propaganda. I'll bet you still think smoking isn't bad for you - after all in many cases it's the same people spreading both messages.

[photofly]

Uh, so because some science is correct, it must all be correct? And if I think some scientists are wrong, unless I go and live in a cave I'm a hypocrite?

You make no sense at all.

[Rockie]

No, you use science every day without questioning it or understanding it. Questioning this is hypocritical because you don't apply the same standard to everything else you don't understand - which is a lot. If you rejected everything you don't understand you'll never leave your cave.

Get it?

[photofly]

Youre complete wrong. I question stuff every day and my natural scepticism is satisfied by the fact that the technology I see works, and the science I use makes testable predictions about the future- predictions that are accurate. None of which can be said for climatology.

[NunavutPA-12]

If we concede that there has been a "dramatic" warming of the earth since man started burning fossil fuels, we've tended to attach a child-like cause-and-effect to the phenomenon, ignoring the fact that the warming was likely "dramatic" over the past ten-thousand years as well. But we don't know that for sure since the only precise records go back just a couple of hundred years at best. The best science available on the subject says that at the end of the last ice age the warming was indeed very "dramatic".

If we don't know (Rockie doesn't) why the earth has gone through several warming/cooling cycles over its lifetime, what makes us think we "know" what's caused the warming over the last 10,000 years, including the warming since the advent of fossil fuels?

[pelmet]

If we concede that there has been a "dramatic" warming of the earth since man started burning fossil fuels, we've tended to attach a child-like cause-and-effect to the phenomenon, ignoring the fact that the warming was likely "dramatic" over the past ten-thousand years as well. But we don't know that for sure since the only precise records go back just a couple of hundred years at best. The best science available on the subject says that at the end of the last ice age the warming was indeed very "dramatic".

If we don't know (Rockie doesn't) why the earth has gone through several warming/cooling cycles over its lifetime, what makes us think we "know" what's caused the warming over the last 10,000 years, including the warming since the advent of fossil fuels?

Because Rockie has no clue or explanation about why we have had all these warm ups in the past. And why should this warm-up, which I very slight overall and just happens to coincide with increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere be any different.

Here is Rockie's answer when specifically asked..."So, how did the Earth transit in and out of it's many pervious ice ages previous to the arrival of humans?". The answer given is...."I have no idea, but I'm sure science knows."

All we get from him is this mindless "Science, Science, Science" statements. Well I have some news for you Rockie. Just because science plays a part in our everyday live(as you have repeatedly mentioned) doesn't mean that every scientific theory must be correct. The cholesterol thing that I had mentioned and further posted about just recently is a classic example of the settled science being bogus. In science there are Laws and theories. A law is provable over and over such as Boyles Law regarding gasses that we all learned in school. Scientific theory, is something very different. It is a theory just like man-made global warming.

So I am back to eating eggs and plan to continue belching(not literally like the cows) as much carbon into the atmosphere as possible. Enjoy the warmth.

And don't forget to explain all those past global warming periods for us Rockie.