Climate Change Consequences

The conflict in Syria is a religious war.

Variables are not necessary equal to causation of global warming.

 

try here: newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems
"Some scholars even complain that peer review itself has not been scientifically validated. The main reason behind the lack of empirical studies on peer review is the difficulty in accessing data. In fact, peer review data is considered very sensitive, and it is very seldom released for scrutiny, even in an anonymous form."

Or here: voxday.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-problem-of-peer-review.html
"Many if not most of the people in academic science today, at least in biology (my field), are overwhelmed with the need to publish in such high volumes, few people with the needed expertise can afford the time to go over the results in detail. All this while, at the same time and for the same reason, the volume of papers that needs to be reviewed goes up. I've heard of (and had myself) papers havve lingered for 4+ months before they even went out for review."

or here: http://www.economist.com/news/leade...it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
"Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties."

 

I personally adopt the term "denier" almost as proudly as that of "deplorable ". I robustly and vigorously deny the religion of the AGW hoaxers. I have not and will not succumb to their false faith that they are so tyrannically trying to force me to adopt

 

Yes, there are a lot of variables that can lead to a war.

Famine due to drought exacerbated by Global Warming is one of the variables currently causing the Syrian Civil War.

 

That's such a great belief system! You don't have to worry about any future evidence or information and you only have to devote a very small amount of intellectual effort in order to maintain it!

 

What do you think they don't address?
BE SPECIFIC.
Otherwise this is just another use of the argumentative fallacy known as Argument by Dismissal. That seems to be a common tactic of yours.

 

The models all predict temperatures that don't match reality, not even including the margin of error. They are trash.
We had this discussion once before. If predictions are the most unlikely then why not provide predictions that are MOST likely?
You *never* see a prediction from the AGW alarmists, like you, that the Arctic ice probably won't completely melt. Or that the California drought was probably *not* because of global warming.
When the AGW religionists focus on the *most* extreme events in their predictions then they are just asking to get them thrown back in their face.
Besides, a margin of error implies that some will be right and some won't be. So far none of the predictions of the AGW religionists have been right. Something is wrong with their looking glass!

 

Malarky! Sunni's have been fighting Shia for 800 years or more in that region. It has never stopped. It is still going on!

 

As physicist Richard Feynman has said on this matter, if the experiment/experience doesn't agree with the theory, the theory is wrong. The whole global warming theory is based on computer models and projections, many times accomplished with false and/or manipulated data. Too many provable instances of data being massaged to conform to the narrative rather than the theory changed to match the data.

 

And it has the benefit of being true!

 

Yes, I'll agree with you here. Drought and famine can lead people do to things they normally wouldn't under normal circumstances.

 

It doesn't matter. Nobody is going to change their way of life, and that is the problem. "Humans are a significant factor in that warming". I can guarantee that top government scientists are not going to change their luxurious lifestyles.

Climate change is continuously argued over, and during that argument nothing changes, besides sometimes the argument. Like right now. Using the internet, and power plants (electricity), to argue over it. In reality it's just a contribution to the problem being argued. It's hypocritical.

 

If 'working' means very few papers ever stand the test of time then you might have something. That's how science works.

 

Yes! And that's the way we want it! I don't know about "few". There are thousands of peer-reviewed publications in the DOAJ database dating all the way .back to the 17th Century, and have stood up to the test of time. But it is true that only those with solid methodology survive..

I do understand that it's not good enough for you. That's fine. I much prefer that to those who refuse to acknowledge that they just don't like how Science works because they are aware that, in the end, Science does work.

 

You evidently don't understand the scientific method then. Getting a paper Peer reviewed means nothing in itself. It then has to be independently tested and verified. Most climate change hypothesis cannot be independently tested, they are unverifiable.

Peer review does not mean that a result is right or will stand the test of time, but that it has met some minimal standards of acceptability for publication. Many rely too much on the fact that just because a paper is published means their argument is correct.

 

I remind all of you of the entire science of AGW.

He gives the formula to cover this and explains it very well.

 

You can't get results without the input data. The whole study will *NOT* be discarded when everyone is working from the same data!

"redoing the experiments using the same data (input) will not alter the results."
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! How do you disprove a study when everyone is working from the same manipulated data?

Why are all the climate models working from land/sea data when the satellite data is so much more extensive and accurate. You don't *have* to guess what the temperature is in the middle of Africa with the satellite data like you do with the land/sea data!
You don't *have* to guess the temperature for a wide swath of the oceans with satellite data like you do with land/sea data!

And, no, in Climate Science, data is *NOT* obtained by many different entities! There are three basic land temperature datasets. All others are derivatives of these. Most of the derived data sets differ only in what they cover, the time spans they cover, and how much guessing they do! They provide no baseline data collection of their own.

 

The models are set up to match TEMPERATURE DATA. If the temperature data is manipulated then how do you design a differential equation that works correctly?
Ans? You don't. That's why the model predictions don't match reality!

 

SO WHAT? So does a colder climate!

 

Your article says: "There is a long history of conflicts over water in these regions because of the natural water scarcity, the early development of irrigated agriculture, and complex religious and ethnic diversity. In recent years, there has been an increase in incidences of water-related violence around the world at the subnational level attributable to the role that water plays in development disputes and economic activities. "

So where does global warming come into this? What do the words "long history of conflicts over water" mean to you?

 

The Middle East is a combination of semi-arid and arid land. Droughts and famine are common and have been throughout history in this area.
Again, the claim that global warming is making things worse is offset by the fact that the Sahara Desert is actually shrinking!

 

What you are intentionally pretending to ignore is that regardless of the accuracy...it's a change. It's not apples to apples. If we were measuring previously one way and change how we measure..that change has to be taken into account or the data gets skewed by that change.

In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data

If your new measurement system measures uniformly cooler...you can't make claims about past temps without making adjustments for the type of measurement.

You just highlighted why your claims are wrong

 

Huh? We've been using inaccurate measurements in the past so we must continue using them?
Did you actually think about this before you posted it?
That's like a doctor treating patients with a thermometer that is wrong. When he finds that out he says "well, since I've used it in the past I'm going to continue using it!"
You ADJUST by moving the ship temperatures DOWN, not by moving the buoy temperatures UP!

 

Malarky!
Most of the data sets show a variation from a standard average over a picked span of time. Either temps are hotter, cooler, or the same as that standard average. A positive variation, a negative variation, or a Zero variation.
When you RAISE the temps shown by the buoys then you change their variation relationship with that picked span of time. In other words you can change the measurements to show what you want!
It's called data manipulation and its why so many critics today simply don't trust the climate models. They are based on manipulated data changed to get the conclusion that is wanted, not what reality actually shows.

 

Ummmm WTF was that word salad?

If ship data is different from buoy data because they measure differently... in order to have coherent analysis those two types of measurements have to be aligned in some way.

As far as "changing what you want" that's pure bullsht. If ship measurement is different by (for instance) 2 degrees from buoy reading consistently...you make that adjustment and move on