Stevie Wonder Opens Hurricane Benefit By Slamming Climate Change Deniers

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

My point is that there are a lot of folks out there with enough scientific education (whether formal or not) to be able to speak intelligently on an issue.  It has been my experience that in the case of scientific items, the proof is in what can be definitively proven.  As to AGW or whatever else anyone wants to call it, the models used (es, I have used several of these models myself) are full of assumptions and in most cases cannot be proven experimentally.  If we say that only those that are identified as climatologists can be trusted to participate in some level of consensus building then I think we are shorting ourselves.

  I agree with that, and I don't think I said anything to the contrary. I disagree with your assertion that it is about being polled for an opinion. When the majority of scientists in a field reach similar conclusions on an issue, that is consensus. You and I are welcome to our opinions, but regardless of how many courses we have taken climate science is not our field of experience. 

  

[Boiler 46,120]

Sad what happened to Michelle Rounds, wonder what the full story is.

[Dashinka 24,799]

8 hours ago, Boiler said:

Sad what happened to Michelle Rounds, wonder what the full story is.

Do you think we will ever know? 

[Dashinka 24,799]

10 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

  I agree with that, and I don't think I said anything to the contrary. I disagree with your assertion that it is about being polled for an opinion. When the majority of scientists in a field reach similar conclusions on an issue, that is consensus. You and I are welcome to our opinions, but regardless of how many courses we have taken climate science is not our field of experience. 

  

I was just making the "polling" statement as a means to show how a consensus can be reached.  Sure, the consensus in this case is loosely defined by the so-called peer reviewed publications, but as we see from some of those on the inside (atmospheric scientists), this can also be very biased.

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/former-nasa-giss-climate-scientist-tells-the-new-nasa-head-to-stop-funding-them/

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I was just making the "polling" statement as a means to show how a consensus can be reached.  Sure, the consensus in this case is loosely defined by the so-called peer reviewed publications, but as we see from some of those on the inside (atmospheric scientists), this can also be very biased.

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/former-nasa-giss-climate-scientist-tells-the-new-nasa-head-to-stop-funding-them/

 

     No one said the consensus was unanimous. I'd like to check out the Real Climatologists website they talk about but I'm on a work computer and for some reason, it comes up as a "forbidden website" . Conspiracy ...... or not?

 

   I have noticed many climate scientists talk about politics, energy production, economics etc. On these issues they are outside their field of expertise, and their opinions are no more valid than anyone else's. I'm really only interested in what they have to say about the science of climatology.

 

[Boiler 46,120]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Do you think we will ever know? 

Maybe, Drive By's no doubt at work?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

On 9/17/2017 at 6:48 PM, Nature Boy Flair said:

Just wait for the emmys tonight. Its going to be one big Trump is a Nazi, we are tolerant open minded people and if you dont agree with us we hope you die in a Hurricane love fest.

 

PS. I saw where Jennifer Lawrences new movie is sinking faster then Roise O'Donnell on a folding chair.

 

I think people have had enough of these idiots. 

Most worstest rating in Emmy history 

[eieio 1,594]

Sun deniers will be claiming man is destroying the earth for the next 1,000 years and then some.  We should respect their religion.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 9/17/2017 at 5:17 AM, Steeleballz said:

 

   The high point of the modern maximum was somewhere in the late 1950's. I'm curious to hear your hypothesis on why observed temperatures have increased as solar activity has decreased. 

Are you sure about that?  This seems to indicate otherwise.

 

https://www.space.com/484-sunspot-activity-8-000-year-high.html 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Climate scientists may have been... wrong?  Is that what this article is trying to say?

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4503006/global-warming-sums-experts-bullies-james-delingpole-opinion/

[Boiler 46,120]

Climate Scientists are never wrong.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, Boiler said:

Climate Scientists are never wrong.

Sorry.  Don't know what came over me.  

 

I wonder if the Thames will freeze solid again this year?

[Boiler 46,120]

Cooling, warming, it is confusing.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Are you sure about that?  This seems to indicate otherwise.

 

https://www.space.com/484-sunspot-activity-8-000-year-high.html 

 

 

 

  The cycle is 88 years, as the article said. That would have made the midpoint of the last maximum somewhere around 1959 or 1960. Theoretically we are still near the start of a solar minimum, and solar activity should trend towards decreasing for the next 30 years or so before it begins increasing again. If you are asking me if I'm sure that's going to happen, I'll have your answer in 30 years or so.

 

  The study is interesting. I don't know if it's saying the cycle is changing, just that there is more solar activity than would normally be expected right now. I'm not sure what they can predict from that. They do say the increased solar activity does not explain the degree of warming that we have seen. 

 

   

Edited September 21, 2017 by Steeleballz

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

I wish some of that global warming wonder ever come this direction, it's been cold and wet in Ireland for as long as I can remember.