 Warming Arctic changing jet stream and our weather: expert | KNLiveEnvironmental | 207583 hits | Feb 21 7:07 am | Posted by: DrCaleb  When severe storms hit one question that is often asked is if the storm is somehow connected to climate change. Scientists are often quick to point out that storms and weather are caused by the jet stream.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
She has a hypothesis, a supposition, something she thinks might be true based on a few years of data. She thinks this might hold up over the million years of climate. Other scientists read the existing data differently and say she's wrong, but Jenny's silly little guess that warm is causing cold is good enough to get her on CTV.
If ice melts, it's proof of global warming.
If ice forms, it's proof of global warming.
If it's hot outside, it's proof of global warming.
If it's cold outside, it's proof of global warming.
If there are a lot of hurricanes, it's proof of global warming.
If there are NOT a lot of hurricanes, it's proof of global warming.
If the Republicans win an election, it's proof of global warming.
Ryan Reynolds being gay? Blame global warming!
The crisis in the Ukraine? Yep, global warming.
All of that is Obama's fault. Especially Ryan Reynolds.
Whatever.
All of that is Obama's fault. Especially Ryan Reynolds.
Obama is also proof of global warming.
The very first thing that invalidates AGW as a true scientific theory is that the proponents of it have never offered a proof that would invalidate the theory. The absence of such a proof allows them to claim that all evidence proves their theory.
"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."
"you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." - A brief History of Time
The very first thing that invalidates AGW as a true scientific theory is that the proponents of it have never offered a proof that would invalidate the theory. The absence of such a proof allows them to claim that all evidence proves their theory.
"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."
"you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." - A brief History of Time
Exactly. And the proponents of AGW keep failing to make their case when they keep pronouncing on trends that will happen by certain dates and then those dates come and go and the event doesn't happen.
According to the AGW crowd:
It wasn't supposed to snow in the UK after 2009.
Sea level is supposed to be at least 10cm higher by now.
Global famines are supposed to be taking place.
& etc. ad nauseum.
The thing that really irks me in all of this is that maybe there is some actual activity going on in the climate that we should be thinking about. But with all of the faked data, the outright hoaxing (UEA emails), and the religious fervor of the pro-AGW camp if there is any real data in the mix it's being lost in the avalanche of BS that makes the pro-AGW camp look more like a cult than anything else.
Seriously, I get less sh*t for trashing Scientology than I get for questioning AGW!
The very first thing that invalidates AGW as a true scientific theory is that the proponents of it have never offered a proof that would invalidate the theory. The absence of such a proof allows them to claim that all evidence proves their theory.
"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."
"you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." - A brief History of Time
Exactly. And the proponents of AGW keep failing to make their case when they keep pronouncing on trends that will happen by certain dates and then those dates come and go and the event doesn't happen.
If anything, the predictions are lower than than the recorded temperatures.
And it's the skeptics that are underperforming.
According to the AGW crowd:
It wasn't supposed to snow in the UK after 2009.
I can't find a reference to this.
Sea level is supposed to be at least 10cm higher by now.
Seems to be true.
Global famines are supposed to be taking place.
& etc. ad nauseum.
Ummmm, yea! Look at the Eastern Sahara, even the Ukraine.
http://www-refresh.vice-motherboard-tes ... sts-say--2
The thing that really irks me in all of this is that maybe there is some actual activity going on in the climate that we should be thinking about.
Totally agree with you there.
But with all of the faked data, the outright hoaxing (UEA emails), and the religious fervor of the pro-AGW camp if there is any real data in the mix it's being lost in the avalanche of BS that makes the pro-AGW camp look more like a cult than anything else.
Again, we've been here. No one faked data, and all independent investigations into the University of Easy Anglia found no impropriety, but found a great deal of denier's selectively quoting emails to further the agenda.
http://www.cce-review.org/
Seriously, I get less sh*t for trashing Scientology than I get for questioning AGW!
Because Scientology is utter BS and as you point out, Scientific theory can be re-written by a better theory that reflects the actual data. And that hasn't happened yet WRT climate science.
We need to accept what the data says, and move on! We can't keep waiting for someone to come up with a better theory for the data, when the theory predicts such dire consequences if we do nothing.
As they say; what if Climate change is false and we accidentally make a better planet instead?
Although posting a graph for a supposed Lindzen projection figure when they admit right on their blog that there isn't any data to draw a graph from, but they created one out of their imagining, drawn from a couple of the Professor's comments from one particular talk he gave...well, that's good for a smile at least if you're calling that science. Then Easterbrook, who's an outlier global cooler is presented as the representative of average skeptic thought - that's a smiler too. The IPCC and Hansen figures are also misrepresented, and that's been well argued all over the place.
Presenting that silly thing above as some sort of accepted document of science makes me want to blush for you Doc.