Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Climate Change and Environmental Issues Thank God for GW

Passage through our territory? That'll be two 'Loonies', eh?

Not to worry. There isn't really an opening. It's all a scientific fraud. The ice is really still there.

Blather blather blather, but no one is willing to get real and answer my questions.

I thought some people at least might attempt, but since they got nothing but nonsense to say, why point out the obvious to the oblivious?

What is a scientific theory?
wiki link

So... essentially science is the process of trying to map observable phenomena to a system of understanding that makes those phenomena understandable and predictable. Anyone should be able to test the validity of the theory in order to verify that the theory correctly predicts observable events according to the logic of the theory.

What continues to confuse many climate change skeptics is the origin of the climate change theory. It is not the case that people noticed that the climate was changing and went around looking for a scientific theory that would explain these changes.

Instead, scientists began to notice that the composition of the atmosphere was changing... IE increased concentrations of CO2 and other gases.

Scientist then started to do research into these various gases to determine the physical characteristics of those gases in order to determine possible implications of changes in atmospheric gas composition.

And, all of the potential effects are not bad. After all, plants need CO2 to grow, and so the earth might grow crops better with higher concentrations of CO2

But, given the verified physical characteristics of these gases, there could also be some negative consequences. For example, when C)2 dissolves in water it creates an acid. So, all things being equal, an increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 might tend to acidify large bodies of water... and this has in fact happened.

Further, one of the physical characteristics of these gases led scientists to be aware of a potential for increased CO2 concentrations to increase atmospheric heat retention.

As far as I am aware, all of the above relies entirely on science that is undisputed.... (IE increases of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and the physical characteristics of these gases)

Ma. can you supply any evidence that any of the above information has been the subject of rigging?


...........

What "may" have been "rigged" was some sort of model that was attempting to project the impacts of known increases in atmospheric CO2 and known physical characteristics of that gas.

But, as it turns out, weather/atmospheric modeling is extraordinarily complex... and so there will likely never be an absolutely accurate model.

All that we can say with absolute certainty is that...

---yes the concentrations of atmospheric gases is changing
---yes, those changes do appear to be caused by human activities
---yes, we have verifiable tested the physical characteristics of the gases in question
---and yes, all things being equal, it seems highly likely that these increased gas concentrations should increase atmospheric temperatures... over time, by some amount that is difficult to ascertain
---and yes, we do seem to be experiencing a time of increasing temperatures... for what ever reason.
--- and no, we cannot rule out human activity as some part of the cause of this change.

Scientific theory is all about observation. How can one discount other's observations? Said discounter doesn't know, said discounter wasn't there.

Don't believe, repeat the experiment yourself. Otherwise, present counter scientific evidence from scientific journals.

...otherwise all that is being none is deluging everyone with 'white noise.'

Observation is one of the key fundamentals of scientific theory.

I don't know enough about the subject to answer your questions; I can however, provide insight into how scientific theory is performed, having done so many times in college.

Scientists specialize and draw upon past performance. As in medicine, questions on a particular topic is better answered by those with experience in the subject matter - or - answers can be copied, or linked, verbatim from a scientific journal.

...just as I provide a wealth of knowledge when it comes to my field of nutrition and food safety.

Scientific journal articles ARE NOT opinion pieces - they are the real, deal. Incidentally, scientific journal articles need to reconstruct the experiment in writing. Write about the results and failures, and present conclusions based on the experiment - which is why such articles tend to leave the layman's eyes glazed over...

Wrongo, Mate. The Ice has actually gone south for the winter.
After enduring centuries of frigid Canadian winters the Ice has simply moved to warmer climes. Some of it has been seen as far south as Florida.

For the moment let's assume that everything you say is true. So what? It doesn't change the fact that the "science" that has been presented as fact is flawed and cannot be repaired without starting from the beginning.

As for Global Warming, it has been called that from the beginning, Global Climate Change was fabricated when Global Warming started to be proven false. Moving targets create opportunity for obfuscation.

So, after reading all of those observations, should I never drive a care because I might get into an accident? Never ski because a Kennedy once died while playing football on skis and didn't see the tree he ran into? Never eat raw fish, never breath unfiltered air, never go into a big city because the crime rate in the cities are much higher than in the country?

As I have said many times, I agree with the ulterior motives of this new enviro-religion. Who doesn't want clean water and clean air? My problem is the path that was taken to impose it upon the entire industrialized world.

When perfroming an experiment the data collected dictate the results of the experiment. If the test equipment used in the experiment is made to indicate false results, the experiment itself is a useless exercise in curiosity, its results as useless as the exercise. Once the "scientists" decided to exclude data points that did not fit their desired results, once they decided to modify thier software to produce only desired results, once they decided to job the peer review process by using only sympathetic reviewers and hiding their data, it stopped being an experiment and became an exercise in curiosity.