ciscokid wrote:SaigonSaddler wrote:ciscokid wrote:I question the data supplied by NASA.
NASA is a government funded organisation, and many of NASA's top scientists rely on that funding for a living. If they express views that are "anti congress", your out of work buddy.
Are we expected to believe this data, just as we were expected to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction :?: :wink:
Considering most of the research has been done under a Bush government that was sceptical of warming until it changed it's mind due to the overwhelming amount of evidence, you may have to rethink your position on that one.
Also NASA only supplies a small percentage of the total data, so your accusations would have to encompass scientific communities and institutions around the world.
The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. No remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. Royal Society.
The last one to go was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007.
However, I believe that the BNP represent the last British political movement sharing your opinion on this..... :wink:
I do not rely on political bodies for guidance, however, if the BNP share my view then that’s one element of the parties Manifesto that I would agree with. :wink:
Todays world governments are a collection of incompetent hypocrites who’s members are out for financial gain and power, rather than representing the electorate. The current labour government is a typical example of this.
I am very sceptical on the data being provided by government funded organisations.
Basis for prediction is supported by data fed into complex computer models to predict future events.
It was an award winning computer model that the banking industry used to predict the behaviour of the financial markets, and then they came up with Credit Swap derivatives, the basis for the 2009 global financial melt down.
Computer models have a real and expected problem accurately predicting outcomes when variables like human behaviours and the weather are involved. Archaeological data shows us that changes in climate both large and small have always shaped life on earth. A global warming trend over the last hundred years? Perhaps, but IMO not as a result of CO2 emissions.
You'd have to be completely uninformed to not acknowledge that we exist on a living planet and change is constant. We will all be affected by the natural process's earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and changing climate. That said, and as posted previously, I would have much more confidence in the computer model approach when meteorologists can predict short term weather more accurately than I can by looking at a cheap barometer.
You say you don’t follow political bodies for guidance, but then make the simplistic jump that all science is directed only by political motive, not only in Britain but all over the world. Fair enough I suppose if you want to be cynical about absolutely everything, but far better to judge each case on it’s own merits.
The vast majority of evidence for warming has little to do with politics or computer models, but hard data collected in the field. Models predict future warming and there is nothing stop others from creating their own models. They haven’t, because they can’t get their models to fit back to the historic warming without including CO2. Either way, the data collected from every continent shows warming entirely consistent with their models.
The weakness in the political argument is the absence of any serious political group opposed to this supposedly glaring cover-up. Can you imagine the political capital to be gained by supporting the sceptical view, if this had any credence? None exists, except for the American ultra right wing drum beaters, senators speaking for the oil companies, bitter and isolated bloggers, desperate attention seekers and the BNP. Fine if you think these have a better grasp of the science, but history suggests that right wing interference with science ends unhappily.
And why is the USA host to the majority of the sceptics - the political animals, the contrary websites? Because the Bush government didn’t ‘believe’ it until the weight of evidence forced it to acknowledge the consensus of the rest of the scientific community towards the end of it’s office.
You infer that all of the science is corrupted and the institutions that I’ve been linking to throughout this discussion have made up the data, the analysis and the dissemination to the public due to some kind of massive and long running global political conspiracy. Pretty good going for the governments you rate as incompetent. Yet no credible scientific alternative to CO2 warming exists. The natural ’processes’ you hint at provide no shelter from the inalienable truth, and neither do the ideas of solar warming or any of the other dead ends. Sceptics are reduced to trying to engineer flaws in the CO2 argument by cherry picking the data and inventing unsupportable explanations.
Finally, MET office weather predictions over the short term are very accurate, so I think what you meant was the medium term, seasonal weather predictions which are want to throw up all sorts of random variables. Both are completely separate from climate predictions, so I’ll be sticking to the world meteorological organisation, the MET office, NASA and the rest of the scientific community, rather than your barometer.