I wonder why the US military and insurance companies are taking climate change seriously.
I guess they fell for the hoax too.
I guess they fell for the hoax too.
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
If the sun has a period of greater intensity, what do the science denying Climate Cultists propose we do to combat it?
- Thread starter GromsDad
- Start date
says the guy who lives in a dry town. Talk about unnecessary regulations and government intruding on the lives of private citizens.
Perhaps the dumbest diversion attempt yet..........as if that has anything to do with anything.
If you want temperature measurements to the 70.1 and 70.01 range before you will call it accurate enough, then yes, you are right. Science can't do that when looking back in time through various disciplines. (Well, to be fair, science wouldn't do that because those tenths and hundredths would come into the realm of what is known "degree of uncertainty". This type of thing is part of why a person would over-engineer a part (or parts), or build up fault tolerances.)
That is why consensus of data from a variety of studies is important and why 10 witnesses all saying mostly the same thing in a court of law is better than one witness saying opposite (also why courts do the whole "preponderance of the evidence" thing before handing out judgements).
A good theory is not based on guesses, it is based on available data. A projected result/outcome of said theory is hopefully peer reviewed and tested as best as we're able.
Just like the first planes didn't fly worth a darn, with refinement of ideas and materials and testing they got better over time. Same with scientific theories.
Last edited:
This apparently has not worked out well for you. If you had spent 30 years of following the science of the issue closely, you might have a leg to stand on.
In this case we don't have 10 witnesses using your example. We'd have 10 guesses based on no accurate data. Then we'd make a model based on the 10 guesses. The media and politicians would then take that model, present it in hyperbolic terms and use it as a means to their political ends.
You're right we don't have 10 witnesses. We have more than 10 scientists studying this in a variety of disciplines, from public university to private think tanks to Fortune 500 companies, and around the globe. Using observable/recorded data from a variety of sources going back many years. There is more than one simulation/model being used to estimate what all these data points mean.
Scientific consensus 1 (link)
Scientific consensus 2 (link)
Scientific consensus 3 (link)
Rebuttal to the above (link)
I was simply working off of the prior example. No doubt there are people with varying motivations who have thrown their support behind the theory. "Simulation" "Model" "Estimate" are all words used when you don't know or can't possibly calculate what the true answer is. Now that's just the talk of where the climate has been and where it MIGHT be going as they attempt to predict the future. (How have their attempts to predict the future over the past 50 years panned out?) From there the climate cult takes the leap in trying to say that man is the root cause in climate fluctuations and trends. Sorry but that dog don't hunt.
I am unsure what you mean by "varying motivations". It is a bit vague and scientific consensus shouldn't involved such a thing as "motivations". If you think researcher as saying whatever they want just so they can get grant money, then it is logical that entities on the other side would do that same (money). A bit of healthy cynicism is probably good to have but using it as a a broad brush seems like the same sort of motivation you decry.
Simulations, models, and estimates are done all the time in various fields. Ever have a estimate performed for a home construction project or a loan, see a weather forecast, do military exercises (simulations)? Good ones are bases in on known quantities, not guesses. I do not understand why you think "we" can't possible calculate or project an outcome or cost or whatever? I'll bet you have done estimates for a business plan...are they based on your knowledge/understanding of the business and business environment?
I've put up some scholarly sources which demonstrate the underpinnings of the scientific consensus so everyone knows I'm not just making stuff up (and so it can be checked). I know smatterings of the various physical disciplines upon which this is based and so they are easy enough to follow, but I don't think that is a requirement to get a decent understanding of where the basis is coming from.
It sucks that the extreme outcomes get all the press and taints the well, but that is the "news for entertainment/profit" kind of world we live in. We know the world has been warming since the continental ice has retreated to the poles long before our ancestors field burning to drive critters off cliffs or clearing crop land, and it makes sense that this continues (and would without any humans around). Humans adding small % of CO2 (of total) since the advent of our industrialize society, does not appear to be slowing the rate of the warming.
Politics can imply this can be for the better (woo, more arable crop land in the northern climes) politics can imply this is worse (expanding deserts), but they don't know which it will be because that is not their job....their job is to do their best to understand the reports and come up with a plan to better the people they work for.
Anyway, lots of words, doubtful it will change anyone's mind, just trying to present a fleshed out view why the scientific community says what it says.