Comments by "C_R_O_M__________" (@C_R_O_M________) on "Fox News"
channel.
-
19
-
16
-
11
-
5
-
4
-
@drkstrong lots of problems with your assertion there.
- First, your temp data set from that era is at the very best a sporadic and unreliable one. So your reference points are iffy.
- Second, we KNOW that record temperatures in the US for the 20th and 21st century occurred back in 1910s. These are reliable because they were individual cases and cross checked. GATs are extremely more difficult to assess.
- Third, you assume that the GATs temp data record was given to us by divine hand and it's irrefutable even thought everybody in the field knows that there have been heavy adjustments to the dataset for the 30s and 40s and "the blip" (that was whitewashed by governments when the issue reached courts). They are still heavily adjusting what they get from ground stations as far as I know as many of them are found to be in confounding locations. So another iffy reference point there.
- Forth and significant: you assume a perfect knowledge of the system thus you believe that if you retract the forcing of GHGs and aerosols (which is also in iffy land in terms of the quantitative/qualitative variable "climate sensitivity to GHG forcing" and its actual forcing on the system) all you are left with is a KNOWN set of factors that are more or less measurable and known.
Here you are missing the larger picture which is that the science is still in its infancy with extensive use of proxies for the temp data and a whole other set of assumptions about climatic factors. These are HUGE levels of uncertainty.
Only the latest peer reviewed Svensmark, Shaviv, et al paper (2021) could prove to be a pivotal point for understanding previously unknown climatic mechanisms. Mechanisms that your set of assumptions never factored in (you had no knowledge of them or didn't accept them - this should remain, though, an open debate!).
Moreover, the error bars are greater than your levels of uncertainty on the issue of having reliable GATs for reference. So the statistical error bars are essentially useless when the underlying data is so iffy and unreliable (I only consider reliable weather balloons and satellite measurements that access a greater depth in the air column and those are available only a few decades now).
The whole ordeal reminds my of the story of Kenneth Arrow (below):
"Arrow’s graduate work at Columbia was interrupted by the Second World War. During the war Arrow was a weather officer in the US Army Air Corps
achieving the rank of Captain, working in the Long Range Forecasting Group. Arrow’s first published paper comes from that period, ‘On the optimal use of winds for flight planning’ (1949a). The group’s principal task
was to forecast the number of rainy days in air combat areas – a month in advance.
The young statisticians in the Weather Division subjected the prediction techniques in use to statistical test against a simple null hypothesis based on historical data. Finding that prevailing techniques were not significantly more reliable than the null, the junior officers sent a memo to the General of the Air Corps suggesting that the group be disbanded. Six months
later, the General’s secretary replied on his behalf:
‘The general is well aware that your forecasts are no good. However, they are required for planning purposes.’
The group remained intact."
This is climate science today in a nutshell. Everything coming out of it is used for planning purposes and the actual science has taken lots of back steps! You should be out in the balcony for that!
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Joskemom After 15 years + that I have been researching the issue, I have concluded that the agenda is 99.99% political and the rest serves as a scientific veil to deceive the masses.
One of the major think tanks that contributed to this agenda is (still exists) the Club of Rome that stated:
"The common enemy of humanity is man."
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, WE CAME UP WITH THE IDEA that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would FIT THE BILL. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
"The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation."
"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though it may sound, DEMOCRACY IS NO LONGER WELL SUITED FOR THE TASKS AHEAD. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today's problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."
The title of the book is "The Limits to Growth; A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind Hardcover" – February 29, 1972.
P.S. needless to say that the Club of Rome is full of political figures that are inspired by Marxist thought.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1