What Climate Wars Did To Science

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Is there here where we have winter, or in sunnier states?

The ROI I'm doing is based on Long Island NY.  It's also offsetting the costs of the solar panels versus having an electric or oil powered pool heating system installed.  

[DrvFrShow]

Advances in solar panels changes the power distribution paradigm. And by making people and businesses more independent it makes our infrastructure less vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Studies have shown that they're viable in places like Washington and British Columbia even in the winter. Silicon makes up 28% of the earth's crust. 

However, there are places where more conventional methods of generation will be needed like in Northern Europe in the winter. Controlled fusion could be real by 2030.

I think we should keep funding them. Subsidizing companies to do this stuff is a lot cheaper than fighting wars over oil. Set the conditions that in exchange for the subsidies, they make the panels here. Once we have the patents on the advanced panels we can sell them around the globe. Good for our economy. 

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, DrvFrShow said:

I think we should keep funding them. Subsidizing companies to do this stuff is a lot cheaper than fighting wars over oil. Set the conditions that in exchange for the subsidies, they make the panels here. Once we have the patents on the advanced panels we can sell them around the globe. Good for our economy. 

Exactly, once we are no longer dependent on oil we can deal with the Middle East in appropriate fashion.  When oil is devalued there will be no way for them to fund the terrorists and all the kingdoms will collapse.  

[Lihu]

27 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Exactly, once we are no longer dependent on oil we can deal with the Middle East in appropriate fashion.  When oil is devalued there will be no way for them to fund the terrorists and all the kingdoms will collapse.  

That's kind of the opposite of what we want to happen. Those kingdoms are puppet governments we helped setup and support.

What I think should happen is that the price of oil be allowed to float and alternative energies and sources of oil make more sense. This will happen at $150/barrel. Less people will drive aggressively and probably stop driving vehicles that get 8-14 miles per gallon. More electric cars will get on the road and solar power will become a huge part of the southwestern economy.

[Gunther]

https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU

Pretty stunning.  Global warming is completely fake, the government has altered data over the past 20 years to their own purpose.  Steve Goddard presented this yesterday in Omaha.

This is compelling and frankly, irrefutable.  It's a 53-min talk so will take some time to get through but I think you will be shocked at what you learn.  I've always believed it was just another false narrative based on stuff I've read but this confirmed it for me.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Gunther said:

Pretty stunning. Global warming is completely fake, the government has altered data over the past 20 years to their own purpose. Steve Goddard presented this yesterday in Omaha

So you would have me believe that independent scientists - including those in other countries without our political climate - have faked data over the past 20 years, too?

[saevel25]

4 hours ago, Gunther said:

Pretty stunning.  Global warming is completely fake, the government has altered data over the past 20 years to their own purpose.  Steve Goddard presented this yesterday in Omaha.

Steve Goddard has routinely been proven false by many independent sources. 

He was proven false on his assertion that NSIDC was falsifying data on the amount of ice that has melted. He retracted his comments that he made. 

He was proven false by Politifact on the assertion that NASA claimed 1998 as the hottest year on record. Goddard refused to realize that technology has changed drastically in the 80+ years data has been collected. Even other global warming skeptics have criticized Goddard's claim as quote, "Bogus". 

The fact is there is no evidence showing that these independent scientist have been falsifying data. Just claiming something as true doesn't prove it as true. 

I wouldn't be quoting a blogger as fact if he himself has not facts. 

 

[GolfLug]

4 hours ago, Gunther said:

https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU

Pretty stunning.  Global warming is completely fake, the government has altered data over the past 20 years to their own purpose.  Steve Goddard presented this yesterday in Omaha.

This is compelling and frankly, irrefutable.  It's a 53-min talk so will take some time to get through but I think you will be shocked at what you learn.  I've always believed it was just another false narrative based on stuff I've read but this confirmed it for me.

Jury is out on causes of global warming (may be the black hole at the center of the Milky Way has to do something, who knows)  but the phenomenon itself? Nope.

Staggering amount of evidential data - melting ice caps, receding glaciers, warmer temps, rising sea levels, weather pattern shifts cannot be 'manufactured'. Too much mounting physical evidence pointing to a slow but a massive shift.      

[Gunther]

Yes, global warming does not exist, ice caps not melting.  This house of cards is beginning to crumble as more and more scientists continue to publish papers refuting it.  

What Goddard does in the video is show how NOAA, NASA, and NCAR have altered the data to show a warming trend.  There was a significant cooling trend from 1940 to 1970, it once was used by alarmists to cite an impending ice age.  That data is now gone, those agencies have removed it or altered it to fit their narrative.  It's a long watch but as I said, it's compelling.

[newtogolf]

Seems scientists have given up on "Global Warming" and now call it "Climate Change" this way if it gets colder or hotter their positions can't be disputed.  

[Ernest Jones]

Sigh.

[iacas]

8 hours ago, Gunther said:

It's a long watch but as I said, it's compelling.

Uhhh, highly unlikely, at this point.

Care to respond directly to my comments, or @saevel25, or anyone else's?

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Seems scientists have given up on "Global Warming" and now call it "Climate Change" this way if it gets colder or hotter their positions can't be disputed.  

Is it scientists who coin this or politicians and the media? That seems a bit short worded for your typical scientist title ;). Of course the title of scientific reports and studies have never been catchy 

[newtogolf]

14 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Is it scientists who coin this or politicians and the media? That seems a bit short worded for your typical scientist title ;). Of course the title of scientific reports and studies have never been catchy 

I don't keep up with the latest terms but I had an environmentalist point out to me that they had switched to Climate Change and that I was wrong for still using Global Warming.    

[Gunther]

37 minutes ago, iacas said:

Uhhh, highly unlikely, at this point.

Care to respond directly to my comments, or @saevel25, or anyone else's?

Thought it was obvious, those independent researchers are using data from NOAA, NASA, NCAR, just applying their proprietary models.  The data is false.

Saevel, if he erred and admitted it, isn't that admirable?  As far as the fact checking agencies, I give them no credence.  He's been a lone wolf fighting the establishment, bUT that is changing.  It's hard for people to shift their paradigms.  Look at you, you don't want to imagine that something that has been artificially made to appear real has been a hoax.  I get that.  Goddard offers proof in his talk, there is no question the data has been tampered with.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Thought it was obvious, those independent researchers are using data from NOAA, NASA, NCAR, just applying their proprietary models.  The data is false.

Saevel, if he erred and admitted it, isn't that admirable?  As far as the fact checking agencies, I give them no credence.  He's been a lone wolf fighting the establishment, bUT that is changing.  It's hard for people to shift their paradigms.  Look at you, you don't want to imagine that something that has been artificially made to appear real has been a hoax.  I get that.  Goddard offers proof in his talk, there is no question the data has been tampered with.

Hoax is a strong word, based on my research the real issue is we're trying to model long term climate changes for a planet that is billions of years old and we are using data that is only a few hundred years old.  The data doesn't fully support the hypothesis so they created models that extrapolate the data.  

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Thought it was obvious, those independent researchers are using data from NOAA, NASA, NCAR, just applying their proprietary models.  The data is false.

How is the data false? 

What is wrong with proprietary models? What is wrong with taking old data points, that were taken with old technology, and updating the estimation after you have advanced the technology and knowledge by 80+ years? 

Unless you have ACTUAL EVIDENCE pointing to a global conspiracy, with in the entire scientific community, of them sitting down and actually saying they are pushing the falsification of data. Then you have nothing. Show me an email or correspondence stating that the scientific community is doing this great conspiracy? 

4 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Saevel, if he erred and admitted it, isn't that admirable? 

Not when he routinely keeps making false statements. How many times does he get to cry wolf before people stop believing in him. 

4 minutes ago, Gunther said:

 As far as the fact checking agencies, I give them no credence.  

Of course not, because they don't fit your view. 

5 minutes ago, Gunther said:

He's been a lone wolf fighting the establishment, bUT that is changing.  It's hard for people to shift their paradigms.  Look at you, you don't want to imagine that something that has been artificially made to appear real has been a hoax.  

It's not a hoax. Humans have influenced nature. That is a fact. The level of which is still being studied. I honestly think the global warming claims were  exaggerated by a very few scientist and many politicians and those in the media. 

We all have to live on this planet. So I rather see us take care of it instead of being ignorant about the fact that we pollute our waters, pollute our air, and accelerate climate change. If people want to have a discussion on how much we influence, or if we need to tame our impact then fine. I am all for that. 

16 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Goddard offers proof in his talk, there is no question the data has been tampered with.

 Post the proof it's been tampered with? Guess what, statistical modelling is not tampering. It's done all the time in a lot of scientific fields. 

13 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The data doesn't fully support the hypothesis so they created models that extrapolate the data.  

Climate change is still a very new and complex science. To out right claim it is a hoax, conspiracy, with out any actual factual evidence to prove it is just idiocy. 

 

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Climate change is still a very new and complex science. To out right claim it is a hoax, conspiracy, with out any actual factual evidence to prove it is just idiocy. 

 

For the record I don't believe it's a hoax which is why I called @Gunther out on it, but it's not as "scientific" as they would like us to believe.  Like anything that is based off of statistics, you can create models that support or don't support a hypothesis.