A recent study conducted analyzing temperature fluctuations since the 1500’s, has all but ruled out the possibility of current climate change being a part of a natural cycle. McGill University’s physics professor Shaun Lovejoy, had concluded after his statistical study of the warming trend, with 99% certainty, that the natural warming hypothesis is false and can be thrown out. ( S. Lovejoy. 2014) "This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers," Lovejoy says. "Their two most convincing arguments - that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong - are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it." ( S. Lovejoy.2014) "We've had a fluctuation in average temperature that's just huge since 1880 - on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius," Lovejoy says. "This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand. ( S. Lovejoy.2014) "While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can't generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases - including this one - the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other." ( S. Lovejoy. 2014) I hate to say " I told you so" to climate change deniers, but...i told you so. [HR][/HR] S. Lovejoy. Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming. Climate Dynamics, 2014; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140411153453.htm
That is excellent work! However, I don't know what can be done to stop the deniers - short of stripping all the energy companies of their money (influence) and throwing all of idiots in jail. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is excellent work! However, I don't know what can be done to stop the deniers - short of stripping all the energy companies of their money (influence) and throwing all of idiots in jail. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The last sentence from the abstract: Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 %. will not make sense to the knuckleheads of climate denial who are obviously barely literate. So it was good of ScienceDaily to break it down for them: Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: Slim to none
I know that feeling all too well, it's like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you play the game, the pigeon will just knock down all the pieces and swagger about like it won.
Political rage is not the same as science. However, one might infer from this, that you made a political end game clear, since this chant was there when I was a young liberal, and even before then. This ends could only happen, if the cause had a powerful excuse or way to leverage. One way to do this is to reverse engineer a means to this ends. The problem is, true or not, manmade global warming and manmade climate change has no precedent within the earth's data, beyond the current claims. It is a prototype, which if you do development work, would be understood as one unique one data point in the bigger picture of things. This does not make for a solid theory, even if true. One data point, however, does have the needed flexibility for a political end game, since politics is subjective and one data point allows a line using any angle, to be drawn, including the subjective rage against the machine; battle cry. The question I have is, how does the consensus factor out all the overlapping natural causes, so it can properly isolate this unique manmade data point, when manmade has not been done before? The fact remains, this is all based on computer simulations not based on other historical data to compare to. One test would be use these manmade heavy simulations to make a prediction. The simulations predicted more hurricanes a few years ago, but the program had to change, due to hard data from nature, not cooperating with the biased simulation. Another prediction involved the northern polar cap gone by now. This tweak had to be fixed. These did not pan put because natural was not factored out properly. I ask how do you know when you have factored out all the natural? The answer is, the simulation will hits bulls eyes all the time, especially with big things. It will not depend on a future prediction that buys time. Another concern I have is, consensus science is not the same as proven science. The reason is mercenary scientists will always go along with the consensus of the company that pays them, or they risk losing their job and future. If you work for any company, and hope to advance your pay scale and you career placement, not going along is professional suicide. For example, if you worked for a mining company or a tobacco company and spoke out again ruining the earth or the lungs, consider yourself black balled by the company. You will never get promoted, since the people at the top needs to be full of company men/women. If you secretly disapprove of company politics, but pretend to go along, you might be able to move up. This is why consensus is not how science works; company politics cannot be ignored. Maybe as a test of company politics, someone can pretend to change their mind on global warming, as an experiment to see what will happen to you. Will you be bullied out or allowed to be outspoken with the same prospects for advancement? The main points are; Manmade is a prototype of one unit occurrence. Company politics can define opinions if ambition and money is important. Computer simulation of a unique event in natural history is not the same as lots of historical data. Simulation that does not accurately predict, has other natural variables acting, which are more complex that CO2 (one trick pony). Water exists as liquid, vapor and solid, with each having a unique effect.
The OP is of course a reference to a recent example of an instance of some member of "the consensus" (all of modern science) doing exactly that, so you could examine the OP reference for information bearing on your question - almost a complete answer to it, actually. The answer would be "Like this". You won't. You keep asking that question, but you never listen to the answers. Why not?
