GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

SimonScans · 12-30-2010, 04:49 AM

Not that long ago we were told the science was settled by some bloke with a Gulfstream; Things would only get hotter. All the models said this and not a single AGW believing scientist took issue with the high degree of certainty. It now turns out it hasn't got hotter, but now, has in places got colder, lots colder. But now this is proof of nothing or proof warming. If the models are so good and so settled how come they didn't spot it? Given that, exactly how is the science settled?

Maybe there is man made global warming, but the true believers can't just flip flop as needed stating with 100% certainty that an outcome they previously did not predict is now proof of AGW, and their theory is all better now and will henceforth get everything just right.

It feels as if the answer is always AGW, we just need to bash everything else till it fits.

NASA says its the warmest year on record. Interesting. Especially interesting that to do that they use data from ground stations all over the world. Well, not all over the world, they're a little thin on those stations at the top and bottom of the world, so there they use statistics to interpolate the data according to their models. Ruh roh. Ask yourself why do they NOT use satellite data, but prefer sparse hand adjusted data from a shrinking number of ground stations?

And by NASA you mean James Hansen at Goddard Institute for Space Studies - of the hockey stick fame and Gore BFF.

All is not lost though - there IS a theory out there that fits the weather a lot better than the CO2 AGW one - namely that it's the sun wot dun it, mixed in with a few other factors like the spinning top wobble of the planet on its axis and a bit of lunar. Low solar output coincides with low temps and harsh winters. They're still working on the exact how, but the correlation works. Weather forecasters like Piers Corbyn and Joe Bastardi now have a good track record of predicting the weather much further in advance than most other weather services - in the UK the MET office is now beyond useless, predicting only ever hotter winters and summers.

But for the AGWers its very, very important indeed that there's only one driver in the system and that its CO2. If we get the idea that because the weather can be influenced by the sun, then maybe the climate over a longer period of time can be influenced also, then the idea that it's all down to stinky, poisonous plant feeding CO2 goes out of the window.

The current weather does not prove AGW right or wrong, but it does prove - since the models failed to predict it - that other factors are at play.

12-30-2010, 04:49 AM
SimonScans Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 342	Not that long ago we were told the science was settled by some bloke with a Gulfstream; Things would only get hotter. All the models said this and not a single AGW believing scientist took issue with the high degree of certainty. It now turns out it hasn't got hotter, but now, has in places got colder, lots colder. But now this is proof of nothing or proof warming. If the models are so good and so settled how come they didn't spot it? Given that, exactly how is the science settled? Maybe there is man made global warming, but the true believers can't just flip flop as needed stating with 100% certainty that an outcome they previously did not predict is now proof of AGW, and their theory is all better now and will henceforth get everything just right. It feels as if the answer is always AGW, we just need to bash everything else till it fits. NASA says its the warmest year on record. Interesting. Especially interesting that to do that they use data from ground stations all over the world. Well, not all over the world, they're a little thin on those stations at the top and bottom of the world, so there they use statistics to interpolate the data according to their models. Ruh roh. Ask yourself why do they NOT use satellite data, but prefer sparse hand adjusted data from a shrinking number of ground stations? And by NASA you mean James Hansen at Goddard Institute for Space Studies - of the hockey stick fame and Gore BFF. All is not lost though - there IS a theory out there that fits the weather a lot better than the CO2 AGW one - namely that it's the sun wot dun it, mixed in with a few other factors like the spinning top wobble of the planet on its axis and a bit of lunar. Low solar output coincides with low temps and harsh winters. They're still working on the exact how, but the correlation works. Weather forecasters like Piers Corbyn and Joe Bastardi now have a good track record of predicting the weather much further in advance than most other weather services - in the UK the MET office is now beyond useless, predicting only ever hotter winters and summers. But for the AGWers its very, very important indeed that there's only one driver in the system and that its CO2. If we get the idea that because the weather can be influenced by the sun, then maybe the climate over a longer period of time can be influenced also, then the idea that it's all down to stinky, poisonous plant feeding CO2 goes out of the window. The current weather does not prove AGW right or wrong, but it does prove - since the models failed to predict it - that other factors are at play.