"Why I Don't Believe" Topic

By 2050, our sun is expected to be unusually cool.

It's what scientists have termed a "grand minimum" — a particularly low point in what is otherwise a steady 11-year cycle.

Now scientists have scoured the skies and history for evidence of an even greater cycle amid these cycles.

GRAND MINIMUM

One particularly cool period in the 17th century guided their research.

An intense cold snap between 1645 and 1715 has been dubbed the "Maunder Minimum."

In England, the Thames river froze over. The Baltic Sea was covered in ice — so much so that the Swedish army was able to march across it to invade Denmark in 1658.

But the cooling was not uniform: Distorted weather patterns warmed up Alaska and Greenland.

These records were combined with 20 years of data collected by the International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite mission, as well as observations of nearby stars similar to the sun.

Now physicist Dan Lubin at the University of California San Diego has calculated an estimate of how much dimmer the sun is likely to be when the next such grand minimum takes place.<q/>

link

We have far more things that impact our climate than what the Global Warmers and Climate Changers are pushing.

From the Sun to Volcanoes we have experience numerous events that drove our climate bonkers.

link

I would state another possible item as well – our position in the Milky Way, which is always changing along with where we are at in the Universe.

link

So as I have stated many times we have experience most of what is happening before.

But because I not a Believer I have been told that I should be wearing a tin hat.

Well it looks like we are going to be a bit cooler in the future instead of hotter.

This really reminds me of the movie The Colony, when measures taken to reverse "Global Warming" almost created a "snowball Earth".

Some people in documentaries now reject the idea of a Little Ice Age, even though there is plenty of documentation to support it. And, in the next documentary some of those same deniers will use other historical climate data from different time periods to support their own particular views.

Extreme heat or extreme cold, I'm ready for whatever comes. There's no perfect snapshot in the planet's climate history that should be "frozen" in time. Climate on Earth has never been a constant and change happens whether we are in the planet or not. And adapting to adversity is what has driven us to adjust to the end of the Ice Age and other climate changes.

There are way worse and pressing local and national matters and threats than an attempt at global climate control, and one that would risk crippling our manufacturing base, specially when projections keep changing.

Just a few years ago they were so sure that it was "Global Warming". Now they are so sure it's "Climate Change" (gives them the sense that they can say "I told you so" if things happen to go the other way).

For the record, I'm not denying that humans have made some impact on climate.

Dan
PS. Besides, my family calls me a Puerto Rican polar bear because I love the cold. So bring on that cold! :)

Why I am Don't Believe

Well said, my friend.

Do you even read your links all the way through?

From your first link:

"One simulation of a grand minimum on the Earth's current climate anticipates a reduction of solar warming by 0.25 percent over a 50-year period between 2020 and 2070.

While the global average surface air temperature appears to cool by "several tenths of a degree Celsius" in the initial years, this reduction was rapidly overtaken by ever-increasing trends.

"A future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming," the study finds."

From the volcano link:

"There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity."

Highlights are mine

As for the comment:

I would state another possible item as well – our position in the Milky Way, which is always changing along with where we are at in the Universe.

Please feel free to explain to us what the mechanisms are that affect our climate from beyond the Solar System. Your link doesn't provide any such correlations.

But because I not a Believer I have been told that I should be wearing a tin hat.

No.

You are teased because you seriously entertain the asinine notion of a world wide conspiracy which includes every climate scientist, every university, every government and government agency and every professional scientific organization in pushing an AGW agenda.

And the only ones standing up for truth are you, Alex Jones, the Koch Brothers and the oil companies.

Climate on Earth has never been a constant and change happens whether we are in the planet or not.

Straw Man argument. No one is saying climate is constant and unchanging. Of course it is and the historical record shows this. However, the rate of change is unprecedented. The rate of increase in CO2 in the last few hundred years has never been seen before.

According to the official 2016 global report from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information,

[2016] marks the fifth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015) and also marks the 40th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, all 16 years of the 21st century rank among the seventeen warmest on record (1998 is currently the eighth warmest.) The five warmest years have all occurred since 2010.

link

Cue the "the NOAA is just a government shill pushing the AGW agenda on behalf of the Illuminati and Bilderberg Group. Fake science! Wake up sheeple!!" announcements.

Did I get that right?

Bowman

Ha! Straw man argument. No one has said that.

You don't like it when others make assumptions though you do the same thing? :)

Seriously though, the ones who call me a denier also make assumptions. I'm not saying that man has not made some impact on the climate. In fact I state that point rather often. Yet that's what they assume. Scratch that. That's what they choose to skip over, though I am making an attempt at understanding the evidence.

But because I don't buy into the current flow ("climate change" instead of "global warming") and because I don't support the latest claims the full 100%, I get ridiculed by some or worse. It really makes me take pause instead of helping me jump on the doomsday bandwagon, if that was ever the intention of my critics in the first place.

Dan

Also cue the "don't question our religion or you will be faced with ridicule".

The climate is changing as it has in the past and will in the future.

VCarter,

That I will agree to.

"There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity."

But those Activities have not brought on huge impacts on weather.

Great Blizzard of 1888 – cause – Volcano – not humans

Recent Flooding in Europe several years ago – cause – Volcano – not humans

I could go and find more but many of you will disregard actual causes so that you can maintain that humans are driving the changes.

Because humans are evil.

But a Volcano in Iceland can end up causing more climate damage than we will ever will.

Well if you feel so great about your carbon foot print sell your cars/trucks get off of the power grid and go back and live in the stone age.

The climate is changing as it has in the past and will in the future.

Again, no one ever denied that. Thanks for stating the obvious. That is not what is being discussed. It is the rate of change in climate that is concerning.

Also cue the "don't question our religion or you will be faced with ridicule".

That tired old canard again. By "questioning" I assume you mean intelligent discourse? On another thread, a research paper from climate scientists from a prestigious university is simply hand waved away by a declaring that the institution is "pushing an agenda". No proof, no substantiation, just a claim which effectively ends all meaningful discussion. Is that an example of "questioning"? It's actually a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". Thanks, but I'll invoke Hitchen's Razor here.

link

As for ridicule, I hope you don't mean the conspiracy comments. That's not ridicule, that is fact, as a perusal of other threads on this board will attest.

But those Activities have not brought on huge impacts on weather.

Off to a bad start, conflating weather with global climate.

Great Blizzard of 1888 – cause – Volcano – not humans

Again this is local weather and not global climate.

In 1887, two volcanoes erupted; Mauna Loa in Hawaii and Manam Island in Papua New Guinea. I can't find anyone linking these volcanoes to the March blizzard of 1888. But I did find this quote about that specific blizzard:

"But on March 11, cold Arctic air from Canada collided with Gulf air from the south and temperatures plunged. Rain turned to snow and winds reached hurricane-strength levels. By midnight on March 11, gusts were recorded at 85 miles per hour in New York City. Along with heavy snow, there was a complete whiteout in the city when the residents awoke the next morning." Seems like the same reason why Texas had a cold spell this year to me.

link

No mention of volcanoes. I do know when Mt. Pinatubo blew in 1991 it heaved an enormous amount of ash into the atmosphere. This increased the albedo of the atmosphere of North America and Canada had a cooler than normal summer. But those mechanisms are well understood. Pinatubo was also the biggest eruption since Krakatoa. I'd be interested in any evidence you could provide linking Mauna Loa and Manam to the Blizzard of 1888. Thanks.

Recent Flooding in Europe several years ago – cause – Volcano – not humans

Not according to the European Environmental Agency. They seem to be blaming greenhouse emissions. They are saying that the flooding will worsen over the next 20 years.

link

The last volcanic eruption from Iceland was Eyjafjallajökull in 2010. Apparently it was a small eruption, but it did interrupt flights over Iceland for less than a week. The flooding in Europe was happening before this eruption and has continued to this day.

link

Again, would you kindly produce the scientific evidence linking this flooding to volcanic activity.

I could go and find more…….

How about you find evidence supporting your claims first.

…..but many of you will disregard actual causes so that you can maintain that humans are driving the changes.

Not at all. Show me the scientific evidence for these claims. Nice sentence, by the way. Isn't that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? You may have forgotten but I did ask above:

"Please feel free to explain to us what the mechanisms are that affect our climate from beyond the Solar System. Your link doesn't provide any such correlations."

Any chance I can see that while you are looking up the Volcano data?

Because humans are evil.

That's called a non-sequitur.

But a Volcano in Iceland can end up causing more climate damage than we will ever will.

That's demonstrably wrong as the quote from your own link demonstrates.

Well if you feel so great about your carbon foot print sell your cars/trucks get off of the power grid and go back and live in the stone age.

Lol.

Again this is local weather and not global climate.

No that event was not just local weather and impacted quite a few places around the world.

Oh and you are wrong on what volcano was the cause.

Try going back to 1883.

As for the European flooding well:

Apparently it was a small eruption,

link

That does not look like a small eruption to me.

link

link

link

When Volcanoes kick up that much ash up it is going to hyper-seed the clouds and you get changes in the climate that can last for years.

link

"Please feel free to explain to us what the mechanisms are that affect our climate from beyond the Solar System.

Well I doubt most scientists have even consider this but if you that all of Outer Space is the same than you are not more than likely going to be wrong.

From areas that could be denser to areas that have more particles of dust or something that we know nothing of. They all could have impacts on our planet as we move through space.

Quacks like a duck. Pun untended.

No that event was not just local weather and impacted quite a few places around the world.

The Blizzard of 1888 affected the NE US and Eastern Canada. Local not global.

Try going back to 1883.

Would that be Krakatoa? The eruption caused the great Blizzard in 1888 but nothing in the years between? Where is the evidence that links the two? And what blizzards did Pinatubo cause over a century later?

That does not look like a small eruption to me.

And you're an expert now? From the links you just posted:

"The 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull were volcanic events at Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland which, although relatively small for volcanic eruptions, caused enormous disruption to air travel across western and northern Europe over an initial period of six days in April 2010"

"But the current eruption is too wimpy to have any significant impact
scientists say."

And you forgot to show what this has to do with European flooding. Providing a list of European floods is not proof that they were due to volcanism. It's simply proof that floods happened.

When Volcanoes kick up that much ash up it is going to hyper-seed the clouds and you get changes in the climate that can last for years.

Unfortunately, the link you posted doesn't corroborate your statement. Nice try. Can you provide some evidence for that? Until then I'll listen to the experts:

"….volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources."

link

From areas that could be denser to areas that have more particles of dust or something that we know nothing of.

So in other words, you have made a statement without knowing what extrasolar phenomenon would cause an effect on Earth's climate and also don't know how these unknown objects could possibly manifest this climate change. But you know it exists. On the other hand, you know for certain that the 38.2 billion tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere every year by burning fossil fuels does absolutely nothing, right?

And you're an expert now?

Unfortunately, the link you posted doesn't corroborate your statement. Nice try. Can you provide some evidence for that? Until then I'll listen to the experts:

"….volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources."

Well I am know a lot more than you since you think it is the CO2.

No it was the large amount of material that it kicked up into the air.

For someone who thinks they know stuff you fall short on understanding seeding of clouds.

Go ahead and listen to those so call experts because they are only looking at the same thing that you are.

Plus you are just focusing on a very small portion of time (less than 100-150 years).

Oh and the Blizzard of 1888 was only one impact from that 1883 event.

There were years of disruptions across the world but you just want to listen only to the experts, who have been wrong for the past 20+ years.

Go ahead and listen to those so call experts because they are only looking at the same thing that you are.

You mean the facts? I agree.

Facts mean printing truth and well that is one thing they do not like.

They rather print their beliefs and use those as facts.

Cruel things facts. You know, hard, scientifically derived and reproducible facts. You may want to try finding some to back your "interesting" assertions….

I for one welcome a warmer world.

I am building a larger house. Cutting down trees on my property and considering buying a larger and older automobile.

I am sick and tired of being told to pay more taxes, send more money to foreign nations, and give up my car, and my other freedoms so 30 years from now the sea level will be one inch less or the temperature two degrees cooler.

I don't believe it for a minute.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

I for one welcome a warmer world.

That's because you don't fully understand the consequences. I see you live in California. Something from your EPA:

PDF link

You know, hard, scientifically derived and reproducible facts

Yeah like when those experts decided to change certain numbers so that their views would be correct.

Yeah like when those experts decided to change certain numbers so that their views would be correct.

Like Dr. Ross McKitrick from UofGuelph?
link

He won't give a distinct, specific example.

As for the link, Mithmee will clearly fall into the first category of responses.

No more like this:

link

link

The NOAA cooked the numbers.

The full court press after this hit saying that was not the case only proves that they actually did cook the data.

That thing is the best you have? Hahahahahaha

[…]The Science paper would have been fine had it simply had a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures, Bates says.

But Mike Tanner, director of NOAA's Center for Weather and Climate at NCEI, says there's no NOAA policy that requires such a disclosure. "There's nothing. That doesn't exist," he says.
Tension in the NOAA ranks

The new furor underscores a long-running tension within NCEI, one that has generally pitted research scientists trying to publish new advances against engineers seeking to ensure everything follows standard protocols, say several scientists who have worked at the center.[…]

link

Martin,

You fall into the category of the data needs to prove your beliefs.

You use computer models designed to show Climate Change is happening.

You will make assumptions that if the data is this from a sensor than it must be doing this where there are no sensors.

Oh and you do love your charts that are design to show big changes and to average individual would appear to be shocking when actually they aren't.

They went to Climate Change instead of Global Warming because the information did not prove that Global Warming was happening.

By calling it Climate Change they can be very vague about what is really happening and they really don't have to prove anything.

All they need to do is state something and your followers will believe that as the truth.

Bowman,

One reason I moved out of California is agenda driven junk science.

When I was a kid we were told a new ice age was coming.
We were told nuclear winter was coming.
We were told over population, pollution, and so many other things were going to destroy the Earth. None of their predictions came true, but the all had the same solution, more taxes, less freedom, give American money to Third World nations, cut national defense, live in smaller houses, etc, etc.

I'm not buying what they are selling.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Mithmee (and Bunkermeister)-

PROOF? I'm still waiting for the evidence….

One reason I moved out of California is agenda driven junk science.

Such as?

Anyways the link I gave you is from the EPA, a federal agency.

When I was a kid we were told a new ice age was coming.

No you weren't. That came from one Time magazine article decades ago. Please show any scientists or scientific papers that said anything close to that.

link

We were told nuclear winter was coming.

Again, by who? Don't you need a nuclear war for a nuclear winter? The small temporary cooling after very large volcanic eruptions is proof that suspended particulate matter in the upper atmosphere reflects sunlight. A Wiki article to help you:

link

We were told over population, pollution, and so many other things were going to destroy the Earth.

Nice hyperbole there. Over population and pollution are very serious problems for humanity to overcome. Thinking otherwise shows an impenetrable ignorance.

link

None of their predictions came true,

Say what? You mean the Earth's population isn't increasing at an accelerating rate?

……but the all had the same solution, more taxes, less freedom, give American money to Third World nations, cut national defense, live in smaller houses, etc, etc.

Oh my gawd, the only thing left to turn this into an Alex Jones rant is mentioning New World Order and Operation Jade Helm!

The NOAA cooked the numbers.

No they didn't

Lamar Smith got this info from a British Tabloid "The Mail on Sunday", quoting Bates on a blog. When later questioned, Bates downplayed any suggestions of misconduct at NOAA. The original Mail on Sunday article made the rounds of denialists and right wingers.

For a summary on the situation here is a good article. Hardly a smoking gun for cooking anything.

link

This topic already came up last year on this thread. This was explained to you then. Much ado about nothing.

A concurrent study showed the accuracy of the NOAA report.

link

What else have you got?

What else have you got?

Besides unsubstantiated, right wing paranoia and conspiracy rants, not much….

And they never will…..

Martin,

You fall into the category of the data needs to prove your beliefs.

As often as possible, I try to practice the reverse, and let form my opinions based on data. Maybe that's why I'm in Geography rather than an Econ department. ;-)

You use computer models designed to show Climate Change is happening.

I wish I had that coding skill. However, I can read code, and to me it dosn't look like the books are cooked. Much more importantly, is the vast number of qualified climate scientists who have converged on similar results using different techniques, coding languages and methodologies.

You will make assumptions that if the data is this from a sensor than it must be doing this where there are no sensors.

uh?
Sensor's can and have been wrong. Considering your work in the aerospace industry should be aware of that.

When CERN had that FTL neutrino problem a while back, folks here were speculating wildy. My thoughts were interesting, but let's wait a bit to see if a more mundane explaination surfaces. In fact it did: a wire that was not fully inserted into it's socket.

Oh and you do love your charts that are design to show big changes and to average individual would appear to be shocking when actually they aren't.

As I've stated before, I try to use the best available evidence when making decidsion. That's why I like to back up my words with data, not bio-hazard levels of excrement of Bos Tauros.
Except that small changes in the average global temperature can have big changes in the world's climate. Remember that 4 degrees C is the difference between the spot where I live being habitable and under 2km of ice…

They went to Climate Change instead of Global Warming because the information did not prove that Global Warming was happening.

By calling it Climate Change they can be very vague about what is really happening and they really don't have to prove anything..

The world is warming. link Futhermore, the link between CO2 and Atmospheric temperature has been known for a while.

As for the "Change from Global Warming­­® to Climate Change®" that talking point is from talking points written by Republican pollster Frank Lutz. PDF link

The money quote:

The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science…Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate

That came from one Time magazine article decades ago.

So what about this.

link

Not coming from a Time article.

PROOF? I'm still waiting for the evidence….

We have provide proof you are so far gone that you don't want the real truth.

link

link

They keep of predicting stuff and getting it wrong every single time.

Martin,

This planet has gone through warming periods and cooling periods many times.

Vancouver, British Columbia, warmed by a full degree in the first 20 years of the 20th century, then cooled by two degrees over the next 40 years, and then warmed to the end the century, ending almost where it started. None of the six climate models tested by the IPCC reproduced this pattern.

Oh and the above is driven by actual data and your great computing models couldn't even reproduced it.

Why? Simple the computer models were designed by individuals who are trying to prove something that they can't.

But they have written those computer models to do one thing and that is give them the answer that they want.

So what about this.?

Not coming from a Time article.

Try to keep up with the conversation, Mithmee. That comment was addressed to Bunkermeister's statement of, "When I was a kid we were told a new ice age was coming."

As to the ILF!Science link, I have three comments.

1) when asked for research to substantiate your claims, please provide actual research. Not links to blogs, or newspaper articles, or articles explaining newspaper articles (which is what your link was).

2) when climate modelling is done and the results go against your "world view", you tend to denigrate the climate science, the scientists involved or the institution that does the research, and then claim that climate modelling is not "real science". However, if the climate modelling seems to present support for your world view (like the article you linked to), then you are on it like flies on crap. Apparently, if you agree with the results then climate modelling is good. If you disagree then it's not real science. Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

3) you don't seem to read your own links for comprehension, or you don't read them all the way through. If you did, you'd notice that ILF!Science printed a retraction just one day later, entitled "There probably won't be an Ice Age in 15 years"

From the author of the study you linked to:

"However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. "The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions," Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming."

link

Your last link is an editorial on Investment Business Daily. See comment #1 above.

Your second link is more interesting. The prime author of the article is David Henderson, a fellow Canadian, and an economist. 2 observations:

1) Henderson is a policy analyst at the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and Canada's own Fraser Institute. The first two are paid shills for the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil. They are clearly designed to obfuscate the climate science and not allow it to become policy in Washington. This is a similar tactic when, paid by the Tobacco Industry, they fought tooth and nail to "prove" that second hand smoke was bogus. The Frazier Institute has also been given large cash donations by the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil is an interesting case, as their own policy statements acknowledge the existence of global warming and their role in exacerbating the effect. But they continue to fund lobbyists to prevent any meaningful government policy.

2) paying attention to an economist attack the climate science done by actual climate scientists, is like listening to my car mechanic attack modern procedures of heart surgery, or having Ken Hamm criticize evolution. It's called the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Authority.

link

Why? Simple the computer models were designed by individuals who are trying to prove something that they can't.

But they have written those computer models to do one thing and that is give them the answer that they want.

Just because you state your unsubstantiated opinion very emphatically, doesn't make it true. Since you continuously are incapable of corroborating your statements, I will invoke Hitchen's Razor.

You can invoke whatever you want it still doesn't change that certain groups have been cooking the numbers in their favor.

Now why would they do that.

Quite a simple answer.

Lots and lots of it.

You can invoke whatever you want it still doesn't change that certain groups have been cooking the numbers in their favor.

Oh, but definitely! Like the Koch brothers, the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute…..

Yet you (and the rest of the Deniers) have NEVER provided a shred of hard, scientific evidence to support YOUR arguments.

So…. WHERE'S YOUR PROOF??????

Mithmee is under the same delusion that a lot of people on the Science board are. If you are a scientist, you need to to seek grant money to fund your research. The delusion is that somehow you will get more money if you follow the consensus of your colleagues.

For example, if you are a biologist studying biodiversity, then you will receive more funding if your research supports evolution and not creationism or some other theory.

Actually, the opposite is true. If you can absolutely show that modern day animal fossils are found in the same levels as dinosaur fossils, and your findings can survive the scrutiny of your peers, you will receive more funding, for your groundbreaking, paradigm shattering work. The same would be true for any scientific field.

The financial pathways from energy giants like the Koch Bros. and oil companies in funding websites (Climate Depot) and Lobbyists (Heartland Institute) are easy to find. All the information is available online. These lobby groups have "experts" who parrot the words of their paying clients, both in Washington and in the media. Just look what nonsense they spread when they were financed by the Tobacco Industry decades ago.

The deniers are quick to slate that certain universities, government agencies and scientists are "pushing an agenda" or lying for money. When asked for substantiation of these claims, we get only the sound of crickets or stock photos of piles of money.

I'm invoking Hitchens Razor……….again.

PS: please show how NOAA "cooking the books" gives any of these bureaucrats and scientists more money in their coffers. I want to know how the lowly field worker who is manning the oceanic temperature monitors financially benefits by lying about his findings.

So…. WHERE'S YOUR PROOF??????

I could come back and ask where is your proof but we have videos and other reports of them claiming something is going to happen and they…

Have been wrong every single time.

Oh and as for the money.

From FY 1993 to FY 2014, government reports show that annual spending on "climate science" grew from $1.31 USD billion to $2.66 USD billon, for a total of $42.49 USD billion.

link

Oh and the lowly worker is not the one writing the computer code.

Climate Science is the big thing right now and there are individuals who will do anything to get a slice of that money train pie.

Believe what you will but you are being a bit naïve if you think that no one is in this only for the money.

Let's stay with the NOAA for a second. It spends about 35% of its yearly budget on climate research. That amounts to about 30 million dollars for 2017.

PDF link

If they are "cooking the books" in order to get a bigger slice of that 42.49 billion pie, then they are doing a lousy job. The same lousy job they are doing in the worldwide conspiracy.

You still have to explain how "cooking the books" brings in more $$ to the NOAA? Why does your government pay extra money to NOAA and NASA to be lied to? TIn foil hat time again.

You can invoke whatever you want it still doesn't change that certain groups have been cooking the numbers in their favor.

You can list "irony impaired" amongst your other qualifications.

Simple the computer models were designed by individuals who are trying to prove something that they can't.

Unless the models show something you agree with. Then they are fine. Remember your link?:

"Life on Earth has always been dependent on the conditions of the Sun, so scientists spend a lot of time studying its activity. A recent announcement from solar scientists suggests that the Sun may soon enter a period of significant reduced activity, possibly causing a mini ice age by 2030 – just 15 years from now.

These predictions were announced at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales, so it hasn't been possible to evaluate the research yet. However, Professor Valentina Zharkova from the University of Northumbria who made this announcement claims that the findings come from a computer model of sunspots that has made "unprecedentedly accurate predictions," as reported in The Telegraph.

Too bad the Telegraph quoted Zharkova incorrectly and that no mini-ice age is coming. But you sure glommed on to that computer modelling pretty hard.

That is because no computer model yet has been able to forecast anything right and can't even forecast past climate change that we have records of.

Computers models are designed by individuals and if they want the model to do something they just put that into the model.

Computers don't do the unexpected all the well and if they can't get the past right than they will never get the future right at all.

Remember

Vancouver, British Columbia, warmed by a full degree in the first 20 years of the 20th century, then cooled by two degrees over the next 40 years, and then warmed to the end the century, ending almost where it started. None of the six climate models tested by the IPCC reproduced this pattern.

What happen in Vancouver during that time is fact and not one computer model could reproduced what actually happen.

Anything that a current computer model spits out today is…

Fiction

Since it more than likely going to be wrong.

Computers don't do the unexpected all the well and if they can't get the past right than they will never get the future right at all.

Remember

Vancouver, British Columbia, warmed by a full degree in the first 20 years of the 20th century, then cooled by two degrees over the next 40 years, and then warmed to the end the century, ending almost where it started. None of the six climate models tested by the IPCC reproduced this pattern.
What happen in Vancouver during that time is fact and not one computer model could reproduced what actually happen.

That's due to the IPCC models being global models, and Vancouver being a city. It's like using a 25 pound sledge hammer on a finishing nail…

Or to bring it to wargaming terminology, it's similar to complaining that you can't get the results of particular skirmish using grand battle Napoleonic scale rules…

Anything that a current computer model spits out today is…

Fiction

Since it more than likely going to be wrong.

Actually, the current models are much better thanks to more data and a better understanding of the interactions.

Of course, that won't satisfy your preconceived notions of the science, no matter how much evidence to the contrary.

A computer model is not science, it is something that tries to forecast something.

Which when use to forecast climate has not done that well of a job.

What possible motive would be behind this international plot by 97% of the scientist and all but one nation in the world to make up and promote the idea of climate change/global warming?

link

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Science doesn't care what anyone thinks. Catastrophic climate change will happen. You can cry fake news and conspiracy all you want because it won't change anything. Unless there is an intervention, it will happen. Thank goodness I don't have any children to worry about. I won't be around when the hits the fan.

Yes what the actual climate is would be a part of science.

Saying what the climate will be and being wrong about it is not.

They spent many years crying wolf on Global Warming and when it was proven that was not happening they change over to "Climate Change" since they really don't need to prove anything.

Oh and once again here in the Pacific NW we have once again gone over the average snowfall.

Now I would bet that no computer model would have predicted this happening.

Yes what the actual climate is would be a part of science.

Saying what the climate will be and being wrong about it is not.

They spent many years crying wolf on Global Warming and when it was proven that was not happening they change over to "Climate Change" since they really don't need to prove anything.

Already answered that on 24 Feb 2018 6:59 p.m

Oh and once again here in the Pacific NW we have once again gone over the average snowfall.

Now I would bet that no computer model would have predicted this happening.

Once again, you're conflating weather with climate.

How about the computer models which determined the mass of the Higgs Boson well before it was actually discovered?

link

What about computer modelling in the design of nuclear reactors, or in designing nuclear waste protocols and predicting repository performance?

link

link

How about the use of computer modelling in medicine and biomedical imaging?

link

link

link

link

link

The list is, frankly, endless. Feel free to find some paid shill from some lobby group to tell us that none of this is science.(Especially someone with no scientific background)

Once again, you're conflating weather with climate.

link

We are talking about Climate/Weather Computer modeling and they have rarely gotten anything correct.

Oh and major impact on Climate is the weather.

Climate is the average weather in a place over many years.

link

Climate is the statistics of weather over long periods of time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

But you can think what you will but I am not so sure that you really know what Climate is.

Which is why when a volcano has a major eruption don't be surprise when the weather/climate changes for the next several years.

The last major Ice Age while caused by the comet/meteor hitting the Earth it was the amount of stuff that was kicked up into the air that caused the Earth to freeze.

So question to you show me a computer climate model that predicted that the East Coast was going to get slammed for the past week by the "weather" that is happening there.