Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

[happyjack27]

There a petition signed by 31,000 scientists with US addresses saying “no convincing evidence” for human induced climate change. you can easily google it.

Oh, I did:
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-gra ... 43092.html
* http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists- ... te-change/

[hanelyp]

Oh, I did:
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-gra ... 43092.html
* http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists- ... te-change/

Fake news site and a fake validation site.

[happyjack27]

Oh, I did:
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-gra ... 43092.html
* http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists- ... te-change/

Fake news site and a fake validation site.

I think the general concept of "fake news" is that it's factually incorrect...

Are you disputing the factual accuracy?

[pbelter]

There a petition signed by 31,000 scientists with US addresses saying “no convincing evidence” for human induced climate change. you can easily google it.

Oh, I did:
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-gra ... 43092.html
* http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists- ... te-change/

When I pointed that out that he 97 % consesus comes form the flawed study where only 33 climate scientists in population of thousands of scientists that belived in AGW, you just waived it away.
Did you even read that link?
Now you are pointing out that in a population of thousands of scientist who disagree with AGW there 39 climatologists.

I would like to observe that 39 > 33

So what is your point? Trying to blame people you disagree with providing flase data by questioning their credentials while waiving away evidence when AGW proponents misrepesent the data because you didn't like who published it?

Anyway, this is not a contest of popularity to see who got more followers. It is important who is right because our future and the future of our children depends on it and wreckign economy tith carbon taxes ad overrgulation is easy.

I value critical thinking...

..shortly followed by....

The AGW crowd is not very fond of those methods.

* personal attack (ad hominem)
* unsubstantiated accusation
* very easily disprovable

so you VALUE it, you just don' t DO it!

Why do you think i ma attacking you personally. I apologize if you fell so.
My point was that AGW scientists ignore the concept of control group. I don't believe you ar one of them, but simply being misled.
I have run only across one study where Mars was used as a control group for validating reasons for temperature fluctuation on Earth.
They were looking at the size of Mars polar caps and saw them shrinking and found correlation between temperature changes on Mars and Earth, pointing out that variations in solar output are the most likely culprit here.

Why do you think that AGW proponent ignoring Ockham's Razor is an "Unsubstantiated accusation?
Temperatures in geological as well as historical record fluctuated and there is no doubt about it.
There is not doubt that technical civilization producing CO2 was not around at that time.
If something happened in the past over and over again and is happening now, Ockham's razor says it is most likely for same reason.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is not only none but there is an actual evidence to the contrary.

Al Gore once said that Arctic is going to be ice free between 2013 and 2016. He is not a scientist but he based that prediction on a report published by a team of scientists at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California.
The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Here is a graph form another study.


Of course the this prediction did not came to pass and theories that predict things that then don't happen are either false or likely false.
And that brings me to your next point that the lack of AGW falisifiability is " very asily disprovable"

If temperatures on Mars fluctuate the same way as on Earth and predictions of AGW scientists did not come to pass, and that does not falsify AGW, then how can one falsify it?

[pbelter]

There a petition signed by 31,000 scientists with US addresses saying “no convincing evidence” for human induced climate change. you can easily google it.

Oh, I did:
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-gra ... 43092.html
* http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists- ... te-change/

When I pointed that out that he 97 % consesus comes form the flawed study where only 33 climate scientists in population of thousands of scientists that belived in AGW, you just waived it away.
Did you even read that link?
Now you are pointing out that in a population of thousands of scientist who disagree with AGW there 39 climatologists.

I would like to observe that 39 > 33

So what is your point? Trying to blame people you disagree with providing flase data by questioning their credentials while waiving away evidence when AGW proponents misrepesent the data because you didn't like who published it?

Anyway, this is not a contest of popularity to see who got more followers. It is important who is right because our future and the future of our children depends on it and wrecking economy with carbon taxes and overregulation is easy.

I value critical thinking...

..shortly followed by....

The AGW crowd is not very fond of those methods.

* personal attack (ad hominem)
* unsubstantiated accusation
* very easily disprovable

so you VALUE it, you just don' t DO it!

Why do you think i ma attacking you personally. I apologize if you fell so.
My point was that AGW scientists ignore the concept of control group. I don't believe you are one of them, but simply being misled.
I have run only across one study where Mars was used as a control group for validating reasons for temperature fluctuation on Earth.
They were looking at the size of Mars polar caps and saw them shrinking and found correlation between temperature changes on Mars and Earth, pointing out that variations in solar output are the most likely culprit here.

Why do you think that AGW proponent ignoring Ockham's Razor is an "Unsubstantiated accusation?
Temperatures in geological as well as historical record fluctuated and there is no doubt about it.
There is not doubt that technical civilization producing CO2 was not around at that time.
If something happened in the past over and over again and is happening now, Ockham's razor says it is most likely for same reason.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is not only none but there is an actual evidence to the contrary.

Al Gore once said that Arctic is going to be ice free between 2013 and 2016. He is not a scientist but he based that prediction on a report published by a team of scientists at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California.
The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Here is a graph form another study.


Of course the this prediction did not came to pass and theories that predict things that then don't happen are either false or likely false.
And that brings me to your next point that the lack of AGW falisifiability is " very asily disprovable"

If temperatures on Mars fluctuate the same way as on Earth and predictions of AGW scientists did not come to pass, and that does not falsify AGW, then what can?

[happyjack27]

There a petition signed by 31,000 scientists with US addresses saying “no convincing evidence” for human induced climate change. you can easily google it.

Oh, I did:
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-gra ... 43092.html
* http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists- ... te-change/

When I pointed that out that he 97 % consesus comes form the flawed study where only 33 climate scientists in population of thousands of scientists that belived in AGW, you just waived it away.
Did you even read that link?
Now you are pointing out that in a population of thousands of scientist who disagree with AGW there 39 climatologists.

I would like to observe that 39 > 33

So what is your point? Trying to blame people you disagree with providing flase data by questioning their credentials while waiving away evidence when AGW proponents misrepesent the data because you didn't like who published it?

Anyway, this is not a contest of popularity to see who got more followers. It is important who is right because our future and the future of our children depends on it and wreckign economy tith carbon taxes ad overrgulation is easy.

I value critical thinking...

..shortly followed by....

The AGW crowd is not very fond of those methods.

* personal attack (ad hominem)
* unsubstantiated accusation
* very easily disprovable

so you VALUE it, you just don' t DO it!

Why do you think i ma attacking you personally. I apologize if you fell so.
My point was that AGW scientists ignore the concept of control group. I don't believe you ar one of them, but simply being misled.
I have run only across one study where Mars was used as a control group for validating reasons for temperature fluctuation on Earth.
They were looking at the size of Mars polar caps and saw them shrinking and found correlation between temperature changes on Mars and Earth, pointing out that variations in solar output are the most likely culprit here.

Why do you think that AGW proponent ignoring Ockham's Razor is an "Unsubstantiated accusation?
Temperatures in geological as well as historical record fluctuated and there is no doubt about it.
There is not doubt that technical civilization producing CO2 was not around at that time.
If something happened in the past over and over again and is happening now, Ockham's razor says it is most likely for same reason.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is not only none but there is an actual evidence to the contrary.

Al Gore once said that Arctic is going to be ice free between 2013 and 2016. He is not a scientist but he based that prediction on a report published by a team of scientists at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California.
The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Here is a graph form another study.


Of course the this prediction did not came to pass and theories that predict things that then don't happen are either false or likely false.
And that brings me to your next point that the lack of AGW falisifiability is " very asily disprovable"

If temperatures on Mars fluctuate the same way as on Earth and predictions of AGW scientists did not come to pass, and that does not falsify AGW, then how can one falsify it?

The idea of falsification harks back to aristotle's original works, particularly "on sophistical refutations". There he outlined the idea of "ignoratio elenchi" meaning "failure to conprehend the idea of refutation." To refute, he explained, means precisely to prove a contrary.

To falsify a hypothesis you must prove an example that, if proven, proves the hypothesis wrong.

To disprove something, you must prove an exceotion.

This is the meaning of refutation.

A hypothesis that cannot be refuted in such a way is "unfalsifiable", or as put more prosaically "not even wrong."

This is one of the prime tenents of science.

Any hypothesis that fails this test is not even worth being tested. Because it can't be. It is "below science." This is the underlying reason why science focuses on experiment and empirical evidence.

An exception which disproved the rule, disproves the rule.

This is why we use the temperature record to test our models, This is why experimental science is always given a higher standing than theoretical science. Whether in situ or in vitro.

[happyjack27]

...and that does not falsify AGW, then what can?

Any in situ or in vitro experiment that with high statistical significance shows its predictions or predictions upon which it is based are false.

However, they must also provide new theories which can predict better AND are not disproven by other theories.

An example of an in situ experiment is you can measure the temperature changes on earth over time, and if that doesn't fit with the predictions, and you can come up with a model that fits it better (that is itself falsifiable - that makes testable predictions (which upon testing are found to be true where the other is not)), you have falsified.

Except that model also has to fit in with other evidence. For example if it breaks the laws of conservation of energy, it's bunk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

An example of an in vitro experiment is you could measure the absorption and reflection spectrum of, say, water vapor. And if you can show all the other measures to be wrong to high statisictical significance, and explain the problem (meaning predict better). But what we know about absorption and reflection spectrum is predicted to very high accuracy by quantum physics (e.g. the shrodinger equation). So you'd have to overturn quantum physics.

indeed, has you enough computing power, you could do a global simulation of climate change at the quantum level, and the predictions would match with high accuracy that which have actually happened. we don't do that, though, we use far more computationally efficient methods in simulations. just saying it goes quantum physics, nuclear physics, chemistry... all the way on up to astronomy. we learn about quantum physics from the stars and vice versa. it's a really impressive model. predicts 100%, with the exception of gravity at quantum scales, and why the particles have the masses that they do. but i digress..


Not entirely impossible - before QED we had the classical model. though we knew for a long time it was wrong because by newton's laws of motion, electrons shouldn't orbit at discrete energy levels - they should be more varied, like the planets around the sun are.

(notably, however, QED didn't "disprove" newton's laws of motion. except for that near the plank length, path is predicted by integral_e^(i*S) instead of min(S). (where S is "action") That is, a charged particle does not take the path of least action, but the path where a minor change in the path produces the least change in action. A very subtle difference, but without it, we wouldn't have quite a few things. but i digress.)

any case, overturning AGW is certainly no easy task, largely because the world of physics is so inexhorably connected. it's comparable to overturning gravity. but it can be done. even our understanding of gravity has been stood on its head before. and the methods are the same: experiment, peer review, verification, etc...

like i said, if you have something, publish it. i'm sure the scientific community will eat it up. they love novelty, and you'd be shattering physics at its very core.

personally, though, i think you'd have better luck with quantum gravity.

[happyjack27]

BTW, you've mentioned solar variation a number of times. I already addressed that with this link:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015 ... the-world/

note, also, aerosols ("dust") is included in that presentation.

Again, scientists already include these things.

[happyjack27]

Al Gore once said that Arctic is going to be ice free between 2013 and 2016. He is not a scientist but he based that prediction on a report published by a team of scientists at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California.
The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Here is a graph form another study.

This is the IPCC estimate:



As you can clearly seem, the ice has been melting much faster than expected.

Here's another graph of (almost) the same thing:



Here is that same data, estimated and actual, over a 1400 year timespan:



I can only surmise that many scientists are trying to figure out what caused it to shrink faster than they predicted.

You are of course welcome to try to improve on their models. I imagine a model with better prediction would be most welcome by the scientific community.

[happyjack27]

btw citing an exponential curve fit to empirical data used by a non-scientist to emphasis a rather salient point about the rather sudden drop in ice, and then trying to claim that everything we know about climate science is wrong on account of it hitting zero too early, is a rather egregious straw man fallacy ( dilapiting an argument to make it a weaker one that you can more easily attack), not to mention a few logical ones.

for a person who gives lip service to critical thinking, you certainly don't use it much in your argumentation.

[hanelyp]

I'm not seeing the medieval warm period, little ice age, or a reflection of historic observations in that chart. I therefor conclude ...
FAKE

[happyjack27]

I'm not seeing the medieval warm period, little ice age, or a reflection of historic observations in that chart. I therefor conclude ...
FAKE

You caught me, hanelyp, i made it with photoshop!

I also forged this article in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10581.html

But your excellent detective work has revealed my deception!

[paperburn1]

And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids.

[pbelter]

So Mars global temperatures fluctuations aligned with those of Earth does not disprove AGW?
The great theory of AGW is immune to the concept of control group?

What anything else that can falsify it?

How about growing Antarctic Ice Cap?

NASA 2014 Antarctic ice reached new maximum
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/an ... rd-maximum

NASA 2015 Antarctic ice new gains
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/na ... han-losses

It must be that AGW just disproved the second law of thermodynamics and the Northern Hemisphere is getting warmer by sucking out all the heat from the Southern Hemishpere and making it colder in turn.

Regarding the graphs: There is so much money flowing into the AGW stuff and so much written on it that if you cherry pick you will find something which is more aligned with the observed data than the rest.

The reason why I picked the graphs I did was because they were the basis of Al Gore's statements and since he is one of the more visible proponents of AGW I thought it is reasonable to discuss ideas and research that is the most visible.

Just think about what Polywell concept could do with one $ billion which is a fraction of the money poured into the AGW theory!
The same AGW theory that is immune to control groups, immune to falsification, hold Ockham's razor in contempt and therefore meets all criteria of an established religion.

This is not the first time such a fallacy happened in science and not the first time it was perpetuated for decades. Read on Lysenkoism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

[paperburn1]

IMHO
If the climate is changing no matter what the cause .
And we do not want it to change.
Then we need to act .
So does any body think the climate is NOT changing? (Man made, natural cycles,space beasts terraforming earth)
Then we need to act and the solution is simple and easily done.
It is called energy conservation and the best part is it makes you richer.
Insulate our homes, drive to work in a economy car instead of that F250 four wheel drive, dry you cloths on a clothesline whenever possible, efficient street lighting the list goes on and on with no real change in your normal everyday lifestyle.


www.builditsolar.com (also about tested and proved methouds to conserve energy)

{steps down from his soapbox in a dignified manner}