Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

wyly · November 14, 2012

The tectonic plates are always moving, and causing friction against each other. Quakes can 'sink' a city. But maybe you are right, not so much tectonic plate movement as it is coastal erosion

I'm not so sure you right on that...Port Royal disappeared after an earthquake as did Old Alexandria...not sure of the reason possibly liquefaction was at work in both cases...

bjre · February 1, 2014

Are we fiddling while our planet burns?

Do we care?

I feel cold recently, where are the scientists?

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2014

I feel cold recently, where are the scientists?

It's winter. You don't need scientists just look at the calendar.

MiddleClassCentrist · February 1, 2014

I read through this thread. I often don't because it is senseless to argue with those who purposefully use bad data and vague generalities to shut down any good discussion... which is what I've found MLW be mostly composed of at times.

Some people still believe there is some bizarre conspiracy of 95%+ of qualified scientists world wide constructing peer review science... to protect their jobs...

Meanwhile the proven billions that the oil industry and wealthy elite are spending on misinformation to protect their trillions are righteous and their information is good.

Sometimes I question whether humanity deserves to live, being that its political leaders and ignorant masses can be persuaded with rhetoric and idiotic claims perpetuated by special interest corporate funded initiatives and right wing media.

Edited February 1, 2014 by MiddleClassCentrist

TimG · February 1, 2014

Meanwhile the proven billions that the oil industry and wealthy elite are spending on misinformation to protect their trillions are righteous and their information is good.

IOW - you think conspiracy theories are great - as long as they are _your_ conspiracy theories.

The reality is no one is unbiased and everyone has a self serving agenda. If you don't understand the self serving agenda of people you trust then you are being manipulated.

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2014

Sometimes I question whether humanity deserves to live, being that its political leaders and ignorant masses can be persuaded with rhetoric and idiotic claims perpetuated by special interest corporate funded initiatives and right wing media.

"Masses" is the key word here. Our political process today is modelled on a dumb, passive, lowest-common-denominator TV-watching "public". People are actually smarter than that, and as that model dies (it IS dying) then we'll feel better about our democracy. The current model for our public isn't sustainable for a democracy.

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2014

Some people still believe there is some bizarre conspiracy of 95%+ of qualified scientists world wide constructing peer review science... to protect their jobs...

Again on the mass model of the public - the current setup dumbs down all sides: a large majority of climate scientists believe warming is happening, and it doesn't seem that way from the coverage - but ALSO a solid majority of American citizens believe that warming is happening as well. TV coverage doesn't show that either.

TimG · February 1, 2014

People are actually smarter than that, and as that model dies (it IS dying) then we'll feel better about our democracy.

Which is why the endless rantings of climate alarmists are increasingly being ignored by the public and politicians. People who act like dishonest shysters should not be surprised that they get treated as dishonest shysters no matter how many PHDs they have. Edited February 1, 2014 by TimG

MiddleClassCentrist · February 1, 2014

IOW - you think conspiracy theories are great - as long as they are _your_ conspiracy theories.

The reality is no one is unbiased and everyone has a self serving agenda. If you don't understand the self serving agenda of people you trust then you are being manipulated.

Not a conspiracy theory, they've traced the funding to "grassroots" movements on multiple occasions back to being entirely funded by big oil. The promotion of hydrogen instead of electric cars, for instance. Where are my fricken' hydrogen cars?

Here's a pretty recent example...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

Or is SCIENTIFIC American also in on this heist? Because it relates to science, and scientists are clearly running the world.

MiddleClassCentrist · February 1, 2014

Again on the mass model of the public - the current setup dumbs down all sides: a large majority of climate scientists believe warming is happening, and it doesn't seem that way from the coverage - but ALSO a solid majority of American citizens believe that warming is happening as well. TV coverage doesn't show that either.

As recently as the Sarah Palin days, it was 50/50, meanwhile a paltry 90% of scientists were convinced at that time. What is the figure now? (I'll just google it, don't bother looking heheh)

As long as corporate propaganda organizations like Fox & Sun "News" are allowed to spread filth, we are at significant risk to eliminating ourselves because our reaction time is years upon years slower.

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2014

As long as corporate propaganda organizations like Fox & Sun "News" are allowed to spread filth, we are at significant risk to eliminating ourselves because our reaction time is years upon years slower.

I would de-politicize your statements to modify the word 'filth' to 'pablum' and add all TV news networks to the list. Don't worry, though, TV news is headed downwards.

TimG · February 1, 2014

I would de-politicize your statements to modify the word 'filth' to 'pablum' and add all TV news networks to the list. Don't worry, though, TV news is headed downwards.

TV news is going the way of the dodo. Nobody in my house watches it. All of the news consumed comes from online sources and I think we are typical. But this also means that people are dividing into smaller and smaller communities that cannot communicate. MiddleClassCentrist is typical of the problem. He thinks his conspipracy theories have merit because he only listens to news that tells him what he wants hear instead of trying to learn what is really going on. You, OTOH, appear to try and understand different perspectives even if you don't agree with them. To be informed in the future will require a willingness to go outside of one's comfort zone. Edited February 1, 2014 by TimG

waldo · February 1, 2014

I would de-politicize your statements to modify the word 'filth' to 'pablum' and add all TV news networks to the list. Don't worry, though, TV news is headed downwards.

"TV news" can be had many ways online... live streaming, delayed posted broadcast, podcasts, etc.. If it's worth watching, and some is, the audience will find it in whatever way is timely/convenient.

of course, favouring the taste of his own oft expressed conspiracies, MLW member TimG offers up a testimonial to his own, as he states, "comfort zone"... the fake-skeptics zone fueling his perpetual conspiracy against "dishonest PhD holding shysters" (aka legitimate scientists holding views counter to his own).

Which is why the endless rantings of climate alarmists are increasingly being ignored by the public and politicians. People who act like dishonest shysters should not be surprised that they get treated as dishonest shysters no matter how many PHDs they have.

hitops · February 2, 2014

The main difference between storms now and storms 100 years ago are such:

- Today, everyone knows about them and gets instantly updated every 5 seconds

- No 24 hour news channels existed 100 years ago

- There are far more people to get hurt, and far more stuff to get wrecked today, and thus both happen far more.

- Its far more expensive to repair broken stuff and people today than 100 years ago

- Bad weather is threatening to a much larger percentage of the population who can realistically expect to live to age 85, compared to one where most won't make it much past 65

- Today, there are literally 10's of thousands of people who's academic reputations, research funding and livelihoods depend directly on saying things about weather that are scary

We are actually having a fair bit fewer hurricanes than in past decades, a 'drought' in hurricane activity. Nearly double the previous drought.

The pendulum is gradually swinging away from alarmism. Today extreme weather events are linked to AGW, simply because now we have the theory of AGW and need stuff to link to it. Real weather is impossibly more complex than the models, and the assumptions you put into the models predict what you will get out, just like any model. The difference with these models is that that are many variables we don't understand or just don't know about.

Edited February 2, 2014 by hitops

Keepitsimple · February 2, 2014

The main difference between storms now and storms 100 years ago are such:

- Today, everyone knows about them and gets instantly updated every 5 seconds

- No 24 hour news channels existed 100 years ago

- There are far more people to get hurt, and far more stuff to get wrecked today, and thus both happen far more.

- Its far more expensive to repair broken stuff and people today than 100 years ago

- Bad weather is threatening to a much larger percentage of the population who can realistically expect to live to age 85, compared to one where most won't make it much past 65

- Today, there are literally 10's of thousands of people who's academic reputations, research funding and livelihoods depend directly on saying things about weather that are scary

We are actually having a fair bit fewer hurricanes than in past decades, a 'drought' in hurricane activity. Nearly double the previous drought.

The pendulum is gradually swinging away from alarmism. Today extreme weather events are linked to AGW, simply because now we have the theory of AGW and need stuff to link to it. Real weather is impossibly more complex than the models, and the assumptions you put into the models predict what you will get out, just like any model. The difference with these models is that that are many variables we don't understand or just don't know about.

Get off this board. Rational thought is not welcome. <_<

hitops · February 2, 2014

Get off this board. Rational thought is not welcome.

Could always try.

waldo · February 2, 2014

The main difference between storms now and storms 100 years ago are such:

setting aside your unsubstantiated opinion, you've made an effort to set up extreme weather as some determiner... of "something"; something that you somehow fail to convey in absolute terms, particularly in regards warming and your several references to AGW. Care to try again?

Real weather is impossibly more complex than the models, and the assumptions you put into the models predict what you will get out, just like any model. The difference with these models is that that are many variables we don't understand or just don't know about.

just which climate models... predicting weather... are you speaking to?

cybercoma · February 2, 2014

Get off this board. Rational thought is not welcome.

Here's a rational thought for you. Weather and climate are different things.

GostHacked · February 2, 2014

Here's a rational thought for you. Weather and climate are different things.

And we are modifying the weather which is affecting climate. Recently found out that bacteria is being used to promote ice nucleation in warmer temperatures resulting in heavier snow fall. Wet on the east coast, dry on the west coast. I predict a slightly longer winter and severe drought in the US south west. Think last year was bad?

If you want to talk about man made stuff, the modification of our weather is most likely the cause of the 'crazy' weather we are seeing. But it's not due to increasing levels of CO2.

Waldo, no need to reply to this, so don't waste your time, I know where you stand on it.

TimG · February 2, 2014

Here's a rational thought for you. Weather and climate are different things.

An idea that alarmists completely ignore whenever a storm or hot weather hits. I look forward to seeing you remind alarmists the next time a sandy-like storm occurs that weather is not climate. Edited February 2, 2014 by TimG

cybercoma · February 2, 2014

An idea that alarmists completely ignore whenever a storm or hot weather hits. I look forward to seeing you remind alarmists the next time a sandy-like storm occurs that weather is not climate.

Says the guy who recognizes climate change but thinks we should do absolutely nothing about it. Who cares about the next generation, amiright?

TimG · February 2, 2014

Says the guy who recognizes climate change but thinks we should do absolutely nothing about it. Who cares about the next generation, amiright?

I care very much about the next generation which I why I argue so strongly against wasting resources on futile gestures that make no difference in the long run. If money is to be spent it needs to be spent in ways that have a chance of achieving the stated objectives. Edited February 2, 2014 by TimG

cybercoma · February 2, 2014

Platitudes.

Michael Hardner · February 2, 2014

The main difference between storms now and storms 100 years ago are such:

....

- Today, there are literally 10's of thousands of people who's academic reputations, research funding and livelihoods depend directly on saying things about weather that are scary

Actually, their reputation depends on them being truthful. If somebody was misrepresenting the data, then it would be very easy for someone else to dispute the data, and a discussion would ensue.

This is the acid test for deniers vs skeptics IMO - if you think that the data is dead wrong then you have no trust in the basic institutions, so the entire world, by extension, is a big lie.

Real weather is impossibly more complex than the models, and the assumptions you put into the models predict what you will get out, just like any model. The difference with these models is that that are many variables we don't understand or just don't know about.

The major factors, though, like solar effects are greenhouse gases are largely known. It would be stupid to ignore those factors, when there's a known relationship there.

TimG · February 2, 2014

Platitudes.

No pragmatism. The people peddling platitudes are the people saying that we must "do something" about a hypothetical problem even if that "something" does nothing to actually address the hypothetical problem. Edited February 2, 2014 by TimG