SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: average joe who wrote (34510)7/7/2011 2:21:09 AM
From: Maurice Winn1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) of 36921
 
Hilarious: <The researchers conclude that declining solar activity over the period and an overall change from El Nino to La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean also contributed to the temperature plateau. > Well, yes, the sun does have an effect on the climate. That's not a big surprise to some of us. But apparently climate "scientists" don't include solar output in their models.

Or that El Nino, La Nina thing which also caught them by surprise and isn't included in their models.

Apparently they didn't include China's sulphate output either. And rumour has it cloud cover wasn't included. How about snow cover? How about plant cover? How about desert extent?

Robert Kaufman is obviously quite mad [or misquoted] <"People can choose not to believe in [man-made] climate change - but the correct term here is 'belief' - believing is an act of faith, whereas science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.

"Even before this paper there wasn't much scientific evidence for denying climate change, and now I don't see any credible scientific contradiction - if people don't believe it, it'll be because they choose not to believe it." >

So in one paragraph he says science is a matter of testing hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against actual observation of the real world. His study of sulphates showed that the climate model was bung and that it should in fact have predicted no increase in temperatures rather than the increase which thousands of climate scientists said was happening, but wasn't.

In the next paragraph he says there is no scientific contradiction. Yes there was and yes there is. THE MODELS SAID THERE WOULD BE WARMING. THERE WAS NO WARMING. THEREFORE THE MODELS ARE WRONG. He thinks he has solved the problem of why the models were wrong and now they'll be all hunky dory. The problem is his false premise about Earth In Balance.

<science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data. > No, science these days is about getting loads of loot to fund their Global Warming religion which has replaced regular religion for them. Actual science showed their climate models wee defective and did not predict reality, contrary to their claims. When reality doesn't match the hypothesis, it means the hypothesis is wrong.

THEY WERE WRONG. THE TEMPERATURE DID NOT INCREASE>

Mqurice
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News