Let It Snow..

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:10 am

Global warming: so totally over that not even Bilderberg will touch it

by James Delingpole 9 Jun 2015

Even if you don’t happen to believe that Bilderberg is the sinister organisation that really rules the world, what cannot be denied is that its secretive quinquennial meetings do to tend to attract some pretty high-level insect overlords.

Here’s the participants list for their latest get together in Telfs-Buchen, Austria later this week. It includes everyone from the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell and the President of the Royal Bank of Canada to the German Minister of Defence to British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne to retired General David Petraeus to none other than the Prime Minister of Belgium. Far more interesting than who’s in on the conspiracy, though, is what’s on the agenda. Or rather what’s not on the agenda.

Have a look at this list of urgent crises facing the world. And see if you can tell what’s missing:

The key topics for discussion this year include:

* Artificial Intelligence
* Cybersecurity
* Chemical Weapons Threats
* Current Economic Issues
* European Strategy
* Globalisation
* Greece
* Iran
* Middle East
* NATO
* Russia
* Terrorism
* United Kingdom
* USA
* US Elections

Well, what’s not there, for some bizarre reason, is the threat that President Obama and his Secretary of State and most of the rest of his administration have repeatedly been assuring us represents the single greatest problem in the world today.

Indeed, just a month ago, the President reiterated this vital and urgent message in his address to the Coast Guard Academy.

Climate change, and especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people. Already, today, in Miami and Charleston, streets now flood at high tide. Along our coasts, thousands of miles of highways and roads, railways, energy facilities are all vulnerable. It’s estimated that a further increase in sea level of just one foot by the end of this century could cost our nation $200 billion.


Stupid, sinister, pesky Bilderberg. Didn’t anyone get the memo?
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Thu Jun 11, 2015 8:03 am

June 11, 2015
Climate Change: Where is the Science?
By Howard Hyde

Is it twice as likely that the Earth is cooling than that it is warming? That humans and fossil fuels have nothing, or everything to do with it, or somewhere in between? Or is it over 99% certain that anthropogenic carbon burning-induced warming is sweeping us to the apocalypse, with all other possibilities combined being less than one percent probable?

The only way to find out is through the most rigorous and critical application of the scientific method, from laboratory practice to public discourse. Anything less than that increases the risk that the 'solution' could be more catastrophic to humans than the results of climate change itself.

Let us examine what the climate change alarm community has done and how they have done it, and see if it qualifies as the rigorous and unimpeachable science that its proponents claim it is. We'll walk it back from results to first principles.

First, results. Nothing defines science so well in the popular mind than the predictive power of scientific theory. "If the conditions, materials and/or forces A, B, C, and D come together in such-and-such a way, then the outcome WILL BE 6.7294874X. If variables P, Q, and R are substituted for A, C, and D, then the outcome will be 2.1 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol in combustion." Awesome.

So, how is that predictive power working out so far? And more to the point, what effect have those results had on the public's confidence in the supposedly infallible science and scientists? In 1999 they said that warming would wipe out the Great Barrier Reef. In 2000 they said that Britain would no longer see snow during winter. In 2001 they predicted starvation from failing grain crops in India. From 2003 to 2005 they concluded that the drought then occurring in Australia would be permanent and Sydney dwellers would have nothing to drink. In 2006 they predicted unprecedented severe cyclones and hurricanes. In 2008 they said that by 2013 there would be no more arctic ice cap; that we would be swimming with the otters at the North Pole.

None of these predictions have come to pass.
The Reef is still there, as is the arctic ice. Children make more snowmen than ever in Britain and the rains returned to Australia with a vengeance. Thanks to the instantaneous and ubiquitous communications made possible by our smartphones and social networking, there is much greater awareness of the severe weather events that do occur than there was before, but in absolute terms, such events are neither more frequent nor more severe than they have always been.

The climate computer models have demonstrated themselves to have no reliable predictive power. The mother of all predictions, that global warming was inexorable, has been debunked by the past seventeen years of actual measurement, sending the climate change community into a mad scramble to explain it, deny it, 'correct' the earlier data, explain why it doesn't disprove their theories, or explain it away.

Even so, none of this proves that global warming isn't happening or won't happen, or that excess carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning won't send us over the brink, right? Of course not -- how do you prove a negative? But the persistence of politicians with a vested interest insisting that Climate Change is a greater threat to humanity than ISIS, Iran, North Korea, unemployment, burning American cities and negative economic growth combined, in spite of the failures of any of the predictions to come true, suggests that something is wrong at a deeper level with the way we are practicing and discussing science.

Scientists, strictly defined, should have no agenda whatsoever other than the discovery of truth; truth of which no human being is the ultimate arbiter, but only Nature. Albert Einstein famously did not want his theory of Relativity accepted until its predictive power had been proven. Scientists who have come to believe that a certain theory is closer to the truth than any known alternatives have the right, indeed the duty, to defend that theory against any and all challenges. But the true scientist must always, without exception, maintain intellectual honesty and be prepared to abandon a theory if its predictive power cannot explain empirical data that does not fit and/or when a rival theory that seems to do a better job of explaining the subject phenomena (often in simpler terms) arises. Skepticism and openness to change and to challenge is the fundamentalist creed of the true scientist.

A theory that does not contain within it the terms of its own falsification is not a valid theory. If the planet Mercury's orbit did not vary by the number of degrees that Einstein's theory said it would, then Relativity would be unproven and Albert would have had to admit failure, as he indicated he would be willing to do. A weasel-word term like Climate Change, where any drought and any flood, any heat wave or cold wave, any storm or any clear sky, any melting or freezing, anywhere at any time, can be cited as evidence of industrial humans' culpability, and there is no defined criteria that would exculpate us, is not a valid theory; it is meaningless Catch-22 Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose political propaganda.

The climate change alarm scientists have lost credibility because too many of them have behaved not as scientists but as politicians. They will regain the trust of the people when they rediscover their principles and comport themselves accordingly, to wit:

* They debate each other honestly and respectfully, including the skeptics and 'deniers', with no recourse to ad hominem attacks or defamation lawsuits.
* Instead of firing, defunding and/or persecuting scientists with whom they disagree, they advocate for funding for research into alternate theories by those same rival scientists on a comparable scale as their own results-oriented research.
* They express their honest scientific opinions in terms of relative probabilities. '100% certainty' in a matter as complex as the entire Earth's climate for the next hundred years should be looked upon with the utmost suspicion.
* They rebuke any and all meteorologists or news readers who ascribe any significance whatsoever to transient local weather events as proof, or even evidence, of anthropomorphic climate change.
* They discontinue all scare tactics and sensationalism, and stick to objective reporting of measurement and rational hypotheses.
* They discontinue hiding behind consensus or authority, and instead demonstrate the courage of their facts, logic, and the track record of their predictions over the long term.
* They stop papering over the differences of opinion within the alarm community in order to present a unified public front; keep the discussion transparent.
* They publicly disclaim any among them who make anti-scientific claims such as that "the debate is over" or "the science is settled". Yes, that means Al Gore and anyone else. Anyone asserting such a preposterous thing should take the statement to its logical conclusion by resigning his or her position and/or returning any unspent research grant money and forswearing any continuance of the same. If the world is round not flat, we don't need to fund research and deploy hardware to ascertain the shape of the earth. If the debate is over, then go home.

In short, we will restore to them the trust and respect to which science and scientists aspire when they demonstrate that they are worthy of it.

Lay persons are easily intimidated from taking on scientists on their turf. But when supposed scientists behave anti-scientifically and demand that we surrender our civil liberties, our private property rights and our prosperity, that's our turf. Giving up the cheapest and most plentiful energy sources available (fossil fuels and nuclear, the latter which does not contribute to greenhouse gasses) can cause a great deal of poverty, hunger and death by exposure to the hostile elements of a poorly understood climate.

It doesn't take a PhD to know what science is and isn't; climate science as practiced by the IPCC, Al Gore and their fellow travelers does not qualify.
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Thu Jun 11, 2015 11:42 am

Global warming: When science meets science fiction

By Tim Constantine - - Saturday, June 6, 2015

One of the most effective ways to sell your political agenda is to back up your concerns with factual information. That info may be statistical or scientific.

In the absence of solid facts, the next most effective method often seems to be to instill fear. If you don’t support “agenda X” there will be dire consequences.

In the case of global warming, the facts don’t support the agenda.

Temperatures have not increased in 18 years. The 1930s actually have the hottest years on record. Why then do we keep reading headlines that global warming is here and Henny Penny the sky is falling?

Perhaps it is because those pushing this agenda keep changing the so-called facts. Oh, they are masters at using fear. They claim more hurricanes and tornadoes are the result of global warming, even though a hurricane hasn’t made landfall in my home state of Florida in 10 years and last year’s U.S. tornado count was the lowest in a generation. They claim the polar ice caps are melting, even though Antarctic Ice set a new record high — again.

In short, the facts don’t support the theory. As a savvy public catches on, what are those who make their living from global warming to do?

Change the science. That’s right, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is turning science into science fiction — literally.

The federal agency “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA “scientists and researchers doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

You read me right. These “scientists and researchers” have determined they know better than the actual weather records what the temperatures around the globe were and are. It’s not fact. It’s not science. It’s their best guess, which by no small coincidence, supports the theory of global warming.

Let’s call it what it is. The science fiction of global warming.
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:08 am

Nailed It: ABC Predicted NYC Would be Under Water from Climate Change by 2015

by Warner Todd Huston 13 Jun 2015

Remembering that the “science is settled,” this is the year that ABC predicted that New York City would be under several feet of water due to rising seas caused by global warming.

That wasn’t all ABC News thought would be going on by 2015 as predicted in its 2008 news special entitled Earth 2100. As Newsbusters’ Scott Witlock reports, the news department also claimed that by 2015 we’d be paying $9 per gallon for gasoline, that milk would cost $13 a gallon, and that many other parts of the US would be under water thanks to that “settled science.”

ABC wasn’t done with the doomsaying, either. Here in the real 2015 researchers estimate that there are about 7.125 billion people on the planet. But in 2008 ABC was sure that by its assumed 2015 the earth’s population would have dwindled to a mere 2.7 billion due to food shortages, clean water shortages, wars, and increased temperatures.

The program, which was produced in 2008 but aired in 2009, was advertised with the fear-inducing claim that we may be “living in the last century of our civilization.”
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Tue Jun 16, 2015 8:52 am

Ouch.

America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend

MICHAEL BASTASCH
Daily Caller
June 16, 2015

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.

The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,” NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record.

Image


Full article here
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby rascard2007 » Tue Jun 16, 2015 11:58 am

What about this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... hange.html

Our scorched Earth in 2100: Nasa maps reveal how climate change will cause temperatures to soar

Nasa has released 11 terabytes of data predicting temperature and rainfall
It allows scientists to predict climate change for individual towns and cities
A map released by Nasa shows large areas in July 2100 will exceed 45°C


It looks like the world could be a much hotter place by the end of the century.
New data released by Nasa scientists is revealing how temperature and rainfall patterns around the world may change by the year 2100.
Using climate change predictions based on increasing levels of carbon dioxide, the data reveals what may happen to the climate in individual towns and cities.
rascard2007
Black Belt
Black Belt
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Havana, Cuba

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby bdub » Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:38 pm

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/22 ... -di/204089

New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan believes the paper is making progress when it comes to using the more accurate term "denier" -- rather than "skeptic" -- to refer to those who reject the scientific consensus on climate change.

In an interview with Media Matters, Sullivan described "denier" as the "stronger term" and the appropriate label "when someone is challenging established science." Sullivan said that "the Times is moving in a good direction" on the issue, adding that the newspaper is using the term "denier" more often and "perhaps should be doing it even more."

She also likened the discussion to the Times' process for evaluating whether to refer to "enhanced interrogation techniques" as torture, stating: "After a long time the Times came around to calling it torture and I thought that was a very good thing. I think we're sort of in the same realm with the business about skeptics and deniers."

Sullivan, who briefly addressed the distinction between "skeptics" and "deniers" in her May 7 column, said she doesn't have any immediate plans to return to the topic. But she reiterated that "language choice is something that interests me a lot because I think it's something that matters."
my main rig...
asrock 970 extreme3
AMD athlonII X3 440
zalman cpns5x performa hs/fan
crucial ballistix 2x4gb sport ddr3-1333
powercolor ax7750 1GBK3-H vga
antec neo he 650r
Samsung 840 EVo SSD 120 GB
toshiba 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
seagate 1TB HDD 64M cache sata3
hitachi 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
lg wh14ns40 bd burner
optiarc ad-7240s sata dvdrw (nec chipset)
bdub
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
 
Posts: 3657
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:12 am
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby Roach412 » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:06 pm

i still posit that calling it "established science" is a false statement. established opinion sure...but it is hardly fact or science when the outcomes of study do not match with the predictions. if you can't effectively predict an outcome, then it is not a proven hypothesis, it is simply an opinion. no matter how many people agree with it, it's still not "established science". otherwise, why don't we just say a God is scientifically proven? i mean, lots of people agree with that statement/hypothesis...probably the vast majority even... :roll:

without valid and reproducible predictions it is simply an unproven hypothesis...and is as much "proven" as is extra-terrestrial intelligent life as of right now.

-Roach
Lian Li Lancool First Knight Series PC-K59W
Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz
EVGA X58 FTW3 132-GT-E768-TR
EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB)
Crucial M4 128gb SATAIII SSD x2
Crucial M4 256gb SATAIII SSD
OCZ Saber 1000 960GB Enterprise SSD
Corsair Professional Series HX850 PSU
Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" w/drop ceiling mount
Logitech G930 7.1 Headset
DBPOWER RGB LED Keyboard
Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Roach412
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2718
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Milwaukee - Wisconsin

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby rascard2007 » Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:25 am

If The Facts Don't Fit The Theory, Change The Facts

Einstein
"I have only come here seeking knowledge,
Things they would not teach me of in college"
-Wrapped Around Your Fingers-
-The Police-
rascard2007
Black Belt
Black Belt
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Havana, Cuba

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby bdub » Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:49 am

cynicism abounds in that quote.
this is why we have peer review.
my main rig...
asrock 970 extreme3
AMD athlonII X3 440
zalman cpns5x performa hs/fan
crucial ballistix 2x4gb sport ddr3-1333
powercolor ax7750 1GBK3-H vga
antec neo he 650r
Samsung 840 EVo SSD 120 GB
toshiba 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
seagate 1TB HDD 64M cache sata3
hitachi 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
lg wh14ns40 bd burner
optiarc ad-7240s sata dvdrw (nec chipset)
bdub
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
 
Posts: 3657
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:12 am
Location: Washington D.C.

PreviousNext

Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest