Reducing pollution is contributing to global warming?

[Doughknob]

AGW is not so much the problem as is SPDKTAS.

 

[Doughknob]

here is the study that is clearly linked to in the article https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Fake news……

 

[Raul-02]

Yep-they point back to their own "research" as data

Without speaking to the accuracy of that assertion, I should ask: "Wouldn't you?" Isn't that part of the whole model? You do your work and others try to tear it apart? Look at how well it worked (The Scientific Inquiry mode I mean) with Dr Judy Mikovits.
In a paper that rocked the medical world, she claimed to have discovered the cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome(CFS). CFS is a poorly understood illness with ENORMOUS FREE MONEY from Congress as Research Grants to study it. Any new development set the Medical Molecular Biology world on fire.

So Scientists all over the world did exactly what they are supposed to do; they took her findings and method apart piece by piece and by November of that same year, discovered she had made the whole thing up.

Same for those bozos Dr Stanley Pons and Dr Martin Fleishman who published their paper proving they found Cold Fusion, but it was all made-up crap? Other researchers tore their "research and findings" apart.

So where is the other research work tearing this apart? It's been out since 2017 I should think that's plenty of time to show the science world the flaws in this piece. Where is it?

 

[kenmbz]

These say they are based on other research and do not have the research papers noted.
No one will even look at this from the scientific community since it is not based on anything.

 

[Raul-02]

Now now lil piney. Its OK. I know it hurts. Mommy will be home soon.

Why is it that when progressives are confronted with material that contradicts their doctrinaire assertions (which they never examine critically) that they automatically and universally resort to insults and belittlement?
Did you not see the link in the article that has the original research?

 

[kenmbz]

I am not arguing that there are flaws in the science of global warming etc. I am sure their are since the models are so complex and created by humans.

My point is just the flaws in this paper.

 

[GSVette]

I am not exactly sure what you are saying here, but I don't Feynman meant what you think he meant. Here is the transcript from that entire speech if anyone wants to read it: What Is Science?


Einstein definitely never said this, and it is likely that no actual scientist or person worth quoting actually said this. It is likely that the original was:
There’s an age-old adage “if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the theory”. But all too often it’s easier to change the facts
but that has been distorted over the years.

Or as it has been morphed “ the truth has been established, beat the facts in to submission “

 

[ponytug]

Just because the media calls a storm 1000 year storm is enough evidence for a thinking person to know they are blowing smoke. We don't have 1000 years of good data. Heck, we don't have 200 years of good data.

You don't always need a thousand years of data; you observe something over time, and accumulate observations. Typically, there is a pattern, or shape, to the distribution of your observations. You can then take your observations, and the distribution of your data over time and make an estimate for how likely some new data point would be.

It doesn't matter whether it is home runs by a hitter, bumper specifications, electrical power cable failures, whether hoof beats are zebras, or weather. You can readily make an estimate with sufficient data. The breadth/size of your base data, and the exact type of its distribution, will determine how certain the estimated data point is. The more data that you have, and the better your model is, the more accurate your predictions are. With global temperature measures, there is a surfeit of data.

What is often lost in the popular press reporting is that an estimate for a "one in a thousand year flood", is that there is a probability associated with that estimate, usually 95%, or 99%, meaning that one time in twenty or one time in a hundred that something that is estimated to be a "one in a thousand year flood", is not that. The flip side is that at least nineteen out of twenty times something called a "one in a thousand year flood", is a "one in a thousand year flood".

I admit to be at home with numbers and numerical analysis. I once made out really well with it when I came across a roulette wheel that was badly off.

It is just statistics.

Whether you believe that the climate is changing or not, the frequency of extreme weather events is increasing. (See citizen reported data here) That is just the data folks. One explanation for the fact that more extreme weather events are happening is that "**** happens". Another is that by virtue of shifts in CO2 levels, global temperature, and climate shifts are occurring. The "**** happens" explanation gives you no way to model or plan for the future. The other explanation gives people who plan, and are involved in building and maintaining things like infrastructure, such as dams, water supplies, levees, roads, power supplies, and home designs, something to make plans with to be better prepared when the future arrives.

If someone recognizes that the roulette wheel is off, and you don't, they will clean you out. That is a fact. It is called betting on a sure thing.

Americans are strangely resistant to believe in climate change compared to the rest of the world;

Climate Change in the American Mind: November 2019

Our latest national survey finds that the highest percentage of Americans since our surveys began are "extremely" or "very" sure global warming is happening.

climatecommunication.yale.edu

Which countries believe in climate change?

A new poll shows different attitudes to climate change around the globe

www.theguardian.com

All the best,

Peter

 

[Raul-02]

No one will even look at this from the scientific community since it is not based on anything.

How can you make such a blanket statement? It sounds like wild speculation.

 

[Raul-02]

Whether you believe that the climate is changing or not,

Oh I believe. I believe it's been changing since the planet first spun into orbit. I also believe that the idea that there is a proper or correct of knowably correct climate for this or any other period is itself a fallacy.
Humankind may be existing in a tiny blip of some goldilocks climate (for us anyway) during our wink of geologic time. It may be that inexorable climate change will soon correct that wiping us from the face of the planet just as it seems to have the dinosaurs.