MrGray
Honorary Master
An interesting tale showing what happens when you're a scientist with evidence contradicting the "97%":
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"
- Thread starter Gingerbeardman
- Start date
RaptorSA
Executive Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 9,154
- Reaction score
- 10,984
Rhueeeeealllllyy....
Yes, garp, let's talk about the replication crisis, mainly an issue in Medicine, Psychology, Marketing, Econmomics, Sports science and Hydrology... and no I'm by no means excluding Climate Science, but feel free to point us into the direction of how the replication crisis applies to it (with actual examples) since you're the one bringing it up for obvious reasons.
Replication crisis - Wikipedia
In medicine[edit]
Out of 49 medical studies from 1990–2003, with more than 1000 citations, 45 claimed that studied therapy was effective. Out of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.[53] The US Food and Drug Administration in 1977–1990 found flaws in 10–20% of medical studies.[54] In a paper published in 2012, Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, at the University of Texas, argued that only 11% of the pre-clinical cancer studies could be replicated.[55][56]
Agreed.
History of Climate Science:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science)
1- First calculations of human-induced climate change, 1896
2- Paleoclimates and sunspots, early 1900s to 1950s
3- Increasing concern, 1950s – 1960s
4- Scientists increasingly predict warming, 1970s
5- Consensus begins to form, 1980–1988
6- Modern period: 1988 to present
Hmm... not centuries, damn, OK. Must all be false then.
I wonder what's the deal with Germ Theory then ... let's see:
"In 1861, Pasteur published his germ theory which proved that bacteria caused diseases."
Ooo p0es.
This thread is a waste of f***ing time.
Attachments
Gingerbeardman
Executive Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2018
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 1,174
Actually, all you're doing is giving good proof of why people don't trust medical professionals these days. A similar effect can be seen within academia as men are bailing from the universities at an ever increasing rate. Hardly surprising with all those activest gender studies type courses floating around.
Rhueeeeealllllyy....
Yes, garp, let's talk about the replication crisis, mainly an issue in Medicine, Psychology, Marketing, Econmomics, Sports science and Hydrology... and no I'm by no means excluding Climate Science, but feel free to point us into the direction of how the replication crisis applies to it (with actual examples) since you're the one bringing it up for obvious reasons.
ooooooops.... oh ****....Replication crisis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In medicine[edit]
Out of 49 medical studies from 1990–2003, with more than 1000 citations, 45 claimed that studied therapy was effective. Out of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.[53] The US Food and Drug Administration in 1977–1990 found flaws in 10–20% of medical studies.[54] In a paper published in 2012, Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, at the University of Texas, argued that only 11% of the pre-clinical cancer studies could be replicated.[55][56]
Agreed.
History of Climate Science:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science)
1- First calculations of human-induced climate change, 1896
2- Paleoclimates and sunspots, early 1900s to 1950s
3- Increasing concern, 1950s – 1960s
4- Scientists increasingly predict warming, 1970s
5- Consensus begins to form, 1980–1988
6- Modern period: 1988 to present
Hmm... not centuries, damn, OK. Must all be false then.
I wonder what's the deal with Germ Theory then ... let's see:
"In 1861, Pasteur published his germ theory which proved that bacteria caused diseases."
Ooo p0es.
This thread is a waste of f***ing time.
And just btw, in the 70s and 80s, scientists were telling everyone to prepare for the next ice age. So that history you've quoted is a bunch of crap.
RaptorSA
Executive Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 9,154
- Reaction score
- 10,984
Nice diversion to one of the best self PWN's I've seen in this thread.
Divert divert divert.
Just another favorite myth the denialists love spreading.
Not worth the time to address.
EDIT:
But here goes another pointless arrow to the truth that'll do ****all to convince you otherwise anyway.
Knock yourself out:
No 1970s Global Cooling Consensus
PCF08 tried to answer a very specific question: was there a scientific consensus in the 1970s "that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent"? To answer this question they conducted a review of the peer-reviewed literature from 1965 to 1979, using specific search terms: "to capture the relevant topics, we used global temperature, global warming, and global cooling". The focus of this search was on projections of future climate: "our literature survey was limited to those papers projecting climate change on, or even just discussing an aspect of climate forcing relevant to, time scales from decades to a century". But they noted that many papers grappled with the uncertainties of climate forcings without making clear predictions about future climate.
Their findings? Only 7 papers projected cooling verses 44 warming papers. There were also 20 "neutral" papers that "project no change, that discuss both warming and cooling influences without specifically indicating which are likely to be dominant, or that state not enough is known to make a sound prediction" (See Figure 1)
A side benefit of this literature survey is that it "shows the remarkable way in which the individual threads of climate science of the time—each group of researchers pursuing their own set of questions—was quickly woven into the integrated tapestry that created the basis for climate science as we know it today". These "individual threads of climate science" were:
- The realization that slow changes in Earth's orbit and tilt (Milankovitch cycles) had played a large part in past ice ages and interglacials. Some scientists extended these cycles into the future to determine the Earth's possible climate trajectory.
- The first global average temperature series compiled by scientists showed a cooling trend since the 1940s.
- Scientists working on aerosols and dust (both natural and human-caused) were trying to determine what influence (if any) they had on climate (cooling or warming).
- Scientists were also quantifying the “greenhouse effect” of another part of our increasing pollution: carbon dioxide, which should cause the climate to warm.
As the various threads of climate research came together in the late 1970s into a unified field of study—ice ages, aerosols, greenhouse forcing, and the global temperature trend—greenhouse forcing was coming to be recognized as the dominant term in the climate change equations for time scales from decades to centuries. (PCF08)
Last edited:
Gingerbeardman
Executive Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2018
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 1,174
Global cooling - Wikipedia
1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
" Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. " – George Santayana " The scientists and computers at the National O...
List goes to 1979, but there's a 10k char limit.
RaptorSA
Executive Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 9,154
- Reaction score
- 10,984
Also.. isn't it funny how this is addressed in the very paragraph you're trashing.
History of climate change science - Wikipedia
"The mainstream news media at the time exaggerated the warnings of the minority who expected imminent cooling. For example, in 1975, Newsweek magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change."[52] The article continued by stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists were having "a hard time keeping up with it."[52] On 23 October 2006, Newsweek issued an update stating that it had been "spectacularly wrong about the near-term future".[53] "
MrGray
Honorary Master
Oh come off it, are you seriously suggesting that "climate change science" is as old and established as medical science is because of a few obscure peripheral calculations in the 1890's? There wasn't even such a thing as field of "climate scientist" until the 70s - it was a mere subcategory under meteorology or atmospheric science.
RaptorSA
Executive Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 9,154
- Reaction score
- 10,984
Global cooling - Wikipedia
List goes to 1979, but there's a 10k char limit.1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
" Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. " – George Santayana " The scientists and computers at the National O...www.populartechnology.net
Scientists increasingly predict warming, 1970s
"The mainstream news media at the time exaggerated the warnings of the minority who expected imminent cooling. For example, in 1975, Newsweek magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change."[52] The article continued by stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists were having "a hard time keeping up with it."[52] On 23 October 2006, Newsweek issued an update stating that it had been "spectacularly wrong about the near-term future".[53] "
Gingerbeardman
Executive Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2018
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 1,174
How is it a self-own? Lol. It's obvious that academia has become politicised.
I should have said 60s and 70s. But you're right, someone claiming that everything that challenges his preferred orthodoxy is a myth is indeed unlikely to be very convincing.
Gordon_R
Honorary Master
Not that its going to change opinions, but the earliest research on climate science was done more than 150 years ago. Article published in 2011: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15093234
Last edited:
Gordon_R
Honorary Master
The real start of climate science was in 1958, when a continuous record of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was first started in Hawaii. Article published in 2013: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22486153
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
So, I don't quite understand what Gordon-Rs point is with posting these two links. If he is trying to throw aspersions as to why some of us are sceptical about the CC lot then his reference is actually quite ludicrous.
He should start looong before john Tyndall. And then note the professions of those who first showed aspects of what the atmospheric impact is on global temperatures. He would then see that they were physicists, Chemists, Engineers, Biologists, Astronomers, Mathematicians and others. Long before Meteorologists would even admit to the possibility that their analysis of weather generally failed to take into account basic principles of heat exchange and the role of the "gasses" that make up the atmosphere play in weather systems. and one hell of a long time before The CC brigade got into the act with their fancy computer models and cause-effect analysis and predictions.
You see, us okes around that studied and worked in the field of radio propagation were obliged to understand electromagnetic wave theory, which meant we were exposed to the likes of Fourier, Tyndall, Maxwell, Joule etc.
We had to understand how wavelength propagation is affected by the atmosphere, from 0 Hz, through the sound frequencies, long-, short-, medium-, micro-wave and ultimately in the 1970's into the infrared and visible light wavelengths. Part of that was to understand infra-red absorption. I was part of the very first attempt in SA to run an FSO infrared communication link between the Hillbrow Tower and Gundle Plastics in the 70's! We ended up becoming pretty much experts on the effects of pollutants in the air over JHB, plus the effects of clouds and water vapour and mist on that link.
In that rather pathetic tribute written about John Tyndall, there is a much better reference as to who contributed and probably should be given much more credit in the real study of climatology than the current bunch of software jockeys and their so-called weather prediction models. and NONE of those early experimenters had the benefit of high powered computers to help them ---- they had to do it with pen and paper and their own analytic abilities.
If any of you really are interested in the "history of Climatology" rather have a look at this reference.
To quote just a very small sample out of the above reference:
I absolutely love this last reference! You see, the problem with meteorologists trying to discredit other experts daring to challenge their work is decades old!
A much better reference to read to understand the impact of Tyndall's work on developing a working explanation of GHGs specifically water vapour, which is his real contribution and NOT as the so-called tribute tries to claim CO2!
en.wikipedia.org
He should start looong before john Tyndall. And then note the professions of those who first showed aspects of what the atmospheric impact is on global temperatures. He would then see that they were physicists, Chemists, Engineers, Biologists, Astronomers, Mathematicians and others. Long before Meteorologists would even admit to the possibility that their analysis of weather generally failed to take into account basic principles of heat exchange and the role of the "gasses" that make up the atmosphere play in weather systems. and one hell of a long time before The CC brigade got into the act with their fancy computer models and cause-effect analysis and predictions.
You see, us okes around that studied and worked in the field of radio propagation were obliged to understand electromagnetic wave theory, which meant we were exposed to the likes of Fourier, Tyndall, Maxwell, Joule etc.
We had to understand how wavelength propagation is affected by the atmosphere, from 0 Hz, through the sound frequencies, long-, short-, medium-, micro-wave and ultimately in the 1970's into the infrared and visible light wavelengths. Part of that was to understand infra-red absorption. I was part of the very first attempt in SA to run an FSO infrared communication link between the Hillbrow Tower and Gundle Plastics in the 70's! We ended up becoming pretty much experts on the effects of pollutants in the air over JHB, plus the effects of clouds and water vapour and mist on that link.
In that rather pathetic tribute written about John Tyndall, there is a much better reference as to who contributed and probably should be given much more credit in the real study of climatology than the current bunch of software jockeys and their so-called weather prediction models. and NONE of those early experimenters had the benefit of high powered computers to help them ---- they had to do it with pen and paper and their own analytic abilities.
If any of you really are interested in the "history of Climatology" rather have a look at this reference.
To quote just a very small sample out of the above reference:
I absolutely love this last reference! You see, the problem with meteorologists trying to discredit other experts daring to challenge their work is decades old!
A much better reference to read to understand the impact of Tyndall's work on developing a working explanation of GHGs specifically water vapour, which is his real contribution and NOT as the so-called tribute tries to claim CO2!
John Tyndall - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Gordon_R
Honorary Master
@Geoff.D I'm not trying to discredit anyone such as Fourier by posting those links, merely pointing out that climate science has a long history, well before it became politicised.
My point is that there are hard indisputable scientific facts behind climate change, even if there continue to be disagreements about the extent of the man-made contribution.
The OP tries to deny the science outright, which is what I strongly objected to right at the start of this thread.
IMO this thread would have been much more constructive if we had laid out the areas that we agreed on first, rather than trying to use narrow details to discredit an entire field, and attributing conspiracy in place of uncertainty.
My point is that there are hard indisputable scientific facts behind climate change, even if there continue to be disagreements about the extent of the man-made contribution.
The OP tries to deny the science outright, which is what I strongly objected to right at the start of this thread.
IMO this thread would have been much more constructive if we had laid out the areas that we agreed on first, rather than trying to use narrow details to discredit an entire field, and attributing conspiracy in place of uncertainty.
Arthur
Honorary Master
Tony Heller over at Real Climate Science has just released a short (12 min) video that cuts to the chase about the current Climate Emergency.
He's also developed software that helps Climate Alarmists pick the right data to scare people with.
He's also developed software that helps Climate Alarmists pick the right data to scare people with.
Currantly
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,766
- Reaction score
- 2,474
Sorry, but Tony Heller has been thoroughly debunked by potholer54 in the past:
There's a few videos going back & forth between the two of them.
Nanfeishen
Executive Member
Yep , once you get past , through and under all the fear , uncertainty and doubt (FUD) , whats left is political power coupled with money and the desire to profit off of the whole debacle of climate change.
Seeing as theres mention above re ice caps, cycles of the ages and such... Seems like an okay place to post this(?) /shrug
Haven't a clue why it was classified, and why the release version is now 'sanitized', would be interesting to see the full thing. Actual 'story' begins on page 10 of pdf
Enjoy
Haven't a clue why it was classified, and why the release version is now 'sanitized', would be interesting to see the full thing. Actual 'story' begins on page 10 of pdf
Enjoy
Arthur
Honorary Master
Sorry, but doesn't even remotely rise to a "debunk".