[Newsbot]

Title: Warming Arctic changing jet stream and our weather: expert | KNLive
Category: Environmental
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2014-02-21 07:07:10
Canadian

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

�It�s going to need another decade until people are thoroughly convinced and we get robust statistics from the real world,� Francis says. �There will definitely be years when things seem normal�a lot of other things in the climate system that affect the jet stream besides this rapid warming in the arctic (such as El Ni�o and various oscillations).�

She has a hypothesis, a supposition, something she thinks might be true based on a few years of data. She thinks this might hold up over the million years of climate. Other scientists read the existing data differently and say she's wrong, but Jenny's silly little guess that warm is causing cold is good enough to get her on CTV.

[BartSimpson]

The very first thing that invalidates AGW as a true scientific theory is that the proponents of it have never offered a proof that would invalidate the theory. The absence of such a proof allows them to claim that all evidence proves their theory.

If ice melts, it's proof of global warming.

If ice forms, it's proof of global warming.

If it's hot outside, it's proof of global warming.

If it's cold outside, it's proof of global warming.

If there are a lot of hurricanes, it's proof of global warming.

If there are NOT a lot of hurricanes, it's proof of global warming.

If the Republicans win an election, it's proof of global warming.

Ryan Reynolds being gay? Blame global warming!

The crisis in the Ukraine? Yep, global warming.

[Gunnair]

Whatever.

All of that is Obama's fault. Especially Ryan Reynolds.

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Whatever.

All of that is Obama's fault. Especially Ryan Reynolds.

Obama is also proof of global warming.

[N_Fiddledog]

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The very first thing that invalidates AGW as a true scientific theory is that the proponents of it have never offered a proof that would invalidate the theory. The absence of such a proof allows them to claim that all evidence proves their theory.

Stephen Hawking Stephen Hawking:

"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

"you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." - A brief History of Time

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The very first thing that invalidates AGW as a true scientific theory is that the proponents of it have never offered a proof that would invalidate the theory. The absence of such a proof allows them to claim that all evidence proves their theory.

Stephen Hawking Stephen Hawking:

"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

"you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." - A brief History of Time

Exactly. And the proponents of AGW keep failing to make their case when they keep pronouncing on trends that will happen by certain dates and then those dates come and go and the event doesn't happen.

According to the AGW crowd:

It wasn't supposed to snow in the UK after 2009.

Sea level is supposed to be at least 10cm higher by now.

Global famines are supposed to be taking place.

& etc. ad nauseum.

The thing that really irks me in all of this is that maybe there is some actual activity going on in the climate that we should be thinking about. But with all of the faked data, the outright hoaxing (UEA emails), and the religious fervor of the pro-AGW camp if there is any real data in the mix it's being lost in the avalanche of BS that makes the pro-AGW camp look more like a cult than anything else.

Seriously, I get less sh*t for trashing Scientology than I get for questioning AGW!

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The very first thing that invalidates AGW as a true scientific theory is that the proponents of it have never offered a proof that would invalidate the theory. The absence of such a proof allows them to claim that all evidence proves their theory.

Stephen Hawking Stephen Hawking:

"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

"you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." - A brief History of Time

Exactly. And the proponents of AGW keep failing to make their case when they keep pronouncing on trends that will happen by certain dates and then those dates come and go and the event doesn't happen.

If anything, the predictions are lower than than the recorded temperatures.



And it's the skeptics that are underperforming.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

According to the AGW crowd:

It wasn't supposed to snow in the UK after 2009.

I can't find a reference to this.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Sea level is supposed to be at least 10cm higher by now.

Seems to be true.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Global famines are supposed to be taking place.

& etc. ad nauseum.

Ummmm, yea! Look at the Eastern Sahara, even the Ukraine.

$1:

In a 2011 paper, researchers at the Complex Systems Institute unveiled a model that accurately explained why the waves of unrest that swept the world in 2008 and 2011 crashed when they did. The number one determinant was soaring food prices. Their model identified a precise threshold for global food prices that, if breached, would lead to worldwide unrest.

http://www-refresh.vice-motherboard-tes ... sts-say--2

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The thing that really irks me in all of this is that maybe there is some actual activity going on in the climate that we should be thinking about.

Totally agree with you there.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

But with all of the faked data, the outright hoaxing (UEA emails), and the religious fervor of the pro-AGW camp if there is any real data in the mix it's being lost in the avalanche of BS that makes the pro-AGW camp look more like a cult than anything else.

Again, we've been here. No one faked data, and all independent investigations into the University of Easy Anglia found no impropriety, but found a great deal of denier's selectively quoting emails to further the agenda.

http://www.cce-review.org/

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Seriously, I get less sh*t for trashing Scientology than I get for questioning AGW!

Because Scientology is utter BS and as you point out, Scientific theory can be re-written by a better theory that reflects the actual data. And that hasn't happened yet WRT climate science.

We need to accept what the data says, and move on! We can't keep waiting for someone to come up with a better theory for the data, when the theory predicts such dire consequences if we do nothing.

As they say; what if Climate change is false and we accidentally make a better planet instead?

[DrCaleb]

0:

Pass it on.jpg [ 36.7 KiB | Viewed 487 times ]

[N_Fiddledog]

There's nothing "skeptical" about the blog Skeptical Science. That's their first lie and they never stop, or even slow down. The graph they created above is almost as farcical and fraudulent as the joke they call their 97% consensus study was, but at least the graph doesn't make you laugh out loud.

Although posting a graph for a supposed Lindzen projection figure when they admit right on their blog that there isn't any data to draw a graph from, but they created one out of their imagining, drawn from a couple of the Professor's comments from one particular talk he gave...well, that's good for a smile at least if you're calling that science. Then Easterbrook, who's an outlier global cooler is presented as the representative of average skeptic thought - that's a smiler too. The IPCC and Hansen figures are also misrepresented, and that's been well argued all over the place.

Presenting that silly thing above as some sort of accepted document of science makes me want to blush for you Doc.

[PluggyRug]

To me it's just more white noise from the AGW crowd.

[PluggyRug]

A more accurate sea level illustration showing the slow down of water level rise.