Non-science of global warming....

[patrickt]

"If you follow closely the subject of hypothesized human-caused global warming, you probably regularly experience, as I do, a strong sense of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, you read dozens of pieces from seemingly authoritative media sources, as well as from important political officeholders, declaring that the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and rapidly rising global temperatures is definitive….On the other hand, you studied the scientific method back in high school, and you can’t help asking yourself the basic questions that that method entails:"
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...al-warming.php

Interesting article and I'm not a science guy like Mr. Nye.

[Taxcutter]

Their models don't give alarmist results unless they doctor the data.

Science based on falsified data is junk science.

[Old Tex]

On the one hand there was a time where the earth was getting warmer. On the other two hands our climate has always gone up & down in cycles. And the 2nd hand? The fact that it became a political agenda & was blown out of proportion for votes. And the funny part is by the time they made it an issue, the earth was in a different cycle & was actually cooling down. (That's from a real climate scientist, not someone that just has a degree).

[patrickt]

Their models don't give alarmist results unless they doctor the data.

Science based on falsified data is junk science.

Another clue to junk science is when the "scientists" refuse to share the data with the community of scientists.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

Bill Nye is a tinkerer. Not very bright. Ever see his proof that CO2 is causing warming? He places a 100 watt heat lamp over fishbowls filled with CO2 and regular air. The one with CO2 gets warmer. He apparently thinks that's QED. For people without science and engineering degrees it apparently is.

[Physics Hunter]

Global cooling, AGW, Climate Change, Peak Oil, ...

The solution is always global governance, tyrannical unaccountable bureaucracies, and turning the first world into the third.

Like the Brits sometimes say, Enviros are watermelons, Green on the outside and (commie) Red on the inside.

[freethinker]

[QUOTE=patrickt;2203686]"If you follow closely the subject of hypothesized human-caused global warming, you probably regularly experience, as I do, a strong sense of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, you read dozens of pieces from seemingly authoritative media sources, as well as from important political officeholders, declaring that the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and rapidly rising global temperatures is definitive….On the other hand, you studied the scientific method back in high school, and you can’t help asking yourself the basic questions that that method entails:"
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...al-warming.php

Interesting article and I'm not a science guy like Mr. Nye.

This is about a study that found a strong correlation between low cloud cover and the mean global (land and ocean) temperature anomaly from 1983 to 2009. Correlation does not prove causation. Other peer-reviewed studies of low cloud cover don't agree with the graph presented by Povrovsky and Kauppinen. Povrovsky used satellite data and processed that through a model to arrive at the graph. There is no discussion in this study of the mechanism of a natural reduction in low cloud cover or errors and uncertainties in the model. Peer-reviewed science supports the conclusion that rising temperature is the
cause of a reduction in low cloud cover. There are many factors that influence climate in addition to low cloud cover, like middle cloud cover, high cloud cover, greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosols, changes in solar irradiance, changes in ocean circulation, and other factors. Just performing a correlation study like this is and ignoring all factors that influence the climate is shoddy science.

This article is essentially the same science as presented in the 6 page paper by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi titles, "No Experimental Evidence For The Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change". It has not
been peer-reviewed and won't likely ever be accepted by a reputable publisher. The article makes a number of ridiculous claims including that the oceans are the source of increased atmospheric carbon
dioxide and that the climate sensitivity is an order of magnitude smaller than what is generally accepted. I read the 6 page paper and the rebuttals by climate scientists at climatefeedback.org.

[nonsqtr]

"If you follow closely the subject of hypothesized human-caused global warming, you probably regularly experience, as I do, a strong sense of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, you read dozens of pieces from seemingly authoritative media sources, as well as from important political officeholders, declaring that the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and rapidly rising global temperatures is definitive….On the other hand, you studied the scientific method back in high school, and you can’t help asking yourself the basic questions that that method entails:"
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...al-warming.php

Interesting article and I'm not a science guy like Mr. Nye.

The latest piece of propaganda is the "heat index".

The news stations are no longer reporting temperatures, have you noticed that?

They're reporting the "heat index" instead.

No one knows what that is exactly, except it's always a few degrees higher than the actual temperature. It's supposed to be a "feels like" temperature, in other words it's entirely subjective.

But this is the kind of propaganda the Liberals come up with to justify their bullshit. They want to create a new reality, they use this crap to say see, the temperatures have increased. This is the way they sell their snake oil to Dumbass Americans.

[Morning Star]

The biggest hoax about climate change is the solutions they propose. Not a single one of them will change a damn thing.

[patrickt]

Their models don't give alarmist results unless they doctor the data.

Science based on falsified data is junk science.

And junk science is lucrative. I had that explained to me back in the 1950s when "doctors" said smoking was good for you.