An inconvenient truth

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

And what does peer review means if peers themselves don't know?

It means the chance of mistakes being discovered is statistically much greater when information is widely distributed.

Originally Posted by Hippikos

I remember Hawking's theory was widely peer reviewed and accepted, however he was forced to admit decades later that his theory was incorrect.

Chalk one up for the system working! Rather than hanging on to entrenched ideas, when they were found to be incorrect, they were rejected.

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Many scientists do have their own agenda, being it glorification or or for monetary reasons.

And their public shame will be that much greater when their science is found to be faulty. There is no Hollywood career for these guys.

[Hippikos]

The editors of the journal Science (2002), however, comment on the increasing number of publications that point to varying solar activity as a strong factor in climate change: “As more and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change. They have included solar variability in their simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering droughts and cold snaps.”

The impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate:





New Ice Age in 2030?

[Flint]

Cool, you can <Ctrl+V>

[Hippikos]

It means the chance of mistakes being discovered is statistically much greater when information is widely distributed.

That took 20 years! And I remember those who doubted Hawking's theories were widely ridiculed same as those who currently question the "climate change" (many scientists changed from "global warming" already years ago).

And their public shame will be that much greater when their science is found to be faulty. There is no Hollywood career for these guys.

Well there ya go! Remember Fleischmann and Pons? They had their agenda....

[Hippikos]

Cool, you can <Ctrl+V>

Yep, that's why I mentioned the source...

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

That took 20 years!

Science doesn't happen overnight.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Yep, that's why I mentioned the source...

I didn't catch your point, you just dumped it there in the middle of our conversation...

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

To be correct, one has to be sure what's right and as far as I know re global warming everything is still out.

Here's the real problem:
climactic research is incredibly complex. There are literally millions of variables that make up global climatalogical changes, which are built on suppositions of regional climatological changes.
Earlier, when I stated that there isn't any causational proof, but there is correlational, this is what I meant:
There are lots of things that are changing on our planet extremely quickly (as such things go): receding glaciers (Mt. Kilamanjaro no longer has a white peak), increasing land and sea surface temperatures, increasing deep-sea temperatures. Simultaneously, there is also proof that the particulate count of CO2 is way higher than it's ever been, and THAT is a direct result of humans burning petroleum and petroleum-based products. So, you have Trend's A-Q (measurable environmental issues) and Trend Z (increase in SO2) and Trend Z should affect the others. However, since there isn't direct causational proof, scientists won't say that's true (that's how science works). The fact that Trend Z is still the most likely cause of the others.
The lack of proof comes down to the fact that all of this data is interpreted and modeled on computers, and we won't get 'real' proof (i.e., more data to prove or disprove the modelling data) until our environment is well and truly fucked because that's how research works.
Oh, and here's some links for people to peruse (a warning, like most scientific data, IT DOES NOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS. It states the data and explains a lot of what I just said, in different language):
Woods Hole Research Center
NOAA's global warming FAQ
National Academies of Science
There's lots more info inside those links. Enjoy!

[Hippikos]

I didn't catch your point, you just dumped it there in the middle of our conversation...

I can read the paper and watch TV at the same time...

Science doesn't happen overnight.

For some people, it does...

[Hippikos]

and THAT is a direct result of humans burning petroleum and petroleum-based products.

Where's the proof? Man produces only 7 of 150 Billion tons of CO2 annually, which is only 4%.

BTW 1% more terrestrial vegetation could take the whole problem away.

[Flint]

So...your point was...???

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Opposed to what you think, many scientists are not as objective as they should be...

Remember this? We were discussing the inner workings of the scientific community. Then you dumped a copy/paste about "the impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate" with no commentary as to how you feel this relates to the subject at hand, or explanation as to which subject you were commenting on, and I've asked you to clarify but you refuse. ...oookay...nice talkin' to ya :::wanders off:::

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Where's the proof? Man produces only 7 of 150 Billion tons of CO2 annually, which is only 4%.

BTW 1% more terrestrial vegetation could take the whole problem away.

The problem being that the CO2 that mankind produces comes from outside the current carbon cycle (it's been locked underground for millions of years). So, 7 billion tons extra to the carbon cycle each year adds up quickly.
And, speaking as the SO of a scientist: NO. Science does not happen overnight (well, technically speaking, it does happen over the nighttime, but it doesn't happen in a single anything [day, night, month, year, whatever]).

[Hippikos]

Remember this? We were discussing the inner workings of the scientific community. Then you dumped a copy/paste about "the impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate" with no commentary as to how you feel this relates to the subject at hand, or explanation as to which subject you were commenting on, and I've asked you to clarify but you refuse. ...oookay...nice talkin' to ya :::wanders off:::

Oh... I'm sorry Flint dear, did you feel left out? For my intermediate message, please read the thread title.

[Hippikos]

So, 7 billion tons extra to the carbon cycle each year adds up quickly.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 4% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon, so adding up quickly is not really the case. Correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

[mrnoodle]

It's been a few pages since this question was asked:

So what?


What are we supposed to do about this menace? Stop driving? Stop heating our homes? Stop eating red meat? Where's the evidence that it would do any good, anyway?

I don't have a chart made by some omniscient group of scientists, but the whole issue feels manufactured, like one of those "clinical studies" done by a company that wants to sell beauty products on TV.

I realize that statement reveals what a lowbrow I am. But 99% of us don't care what levels of ADHSF4C9D2 are present in the 8th level of the atmosphere during a full moon. We care whether or not we should put on a coat when we go outside.

The only hard evidence I see is that despite our best efforts, we have failed miserably at destroying the planet. It just keeps doing its thing while we wail about how important and impactful we are.