New York Times - Science Can Predict Climate Change As Accurately As Eclipses

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The New York Times Says Science Can Predict Climate Change As Accurately As Eclipses. Here Are 5 Problems With That.


Here are five problems with this argument.

1. Comparing the science behind predicting the eclipse to predicting climate science is not a valid analogy. The Daily Caller's Michael Bastasch argues:

Gillis forgets the mention that climate science is still in its infancy compared to astronomy, which has been studied for thousands of years. Ancient Babylonian priests tracked the movement of stars for religious purposes, and Aristarchus of Samos first suggested a heliocentric solar system in the 3rd Century B.C.

A more valid comparison would be weather forecasts, which are generally reliable when it comes to five-day forecasts, but once it gets to ten days it becomes very unpredictable.

2. The climate models have proven to be wrong thus far. In 2013, University of Alabama Huntsville Climate Science Professor Dr. John Christy evaluated 73 computer models cited in the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report at the time, and found that none of them correctly predicted that global temperatures would stay flat since 1996. And yet, the IPCC still declared that they were 95% confident that the primary driver behind climate change was mankind.

"I am baffled that the confidence increases when the performance of your models is conclusively failing," Christy told CNS News. "I cannot understand that methodology."

Despite what the alarmists say, that pause is still ongoing.

In fact, a new bevy of data shows that the Armageddon that is supposed to ensue has yet to occur. For example:

  • The last Category 5 Hurricane to strike the United States was in 1992.
  • There has been a recent "snow bomb" in the Arctic.
  • Extreme weather damage has decreased by 50%.

3. Some climate models have been downright fraudulent.

4. There is no consensus of scientists that believes that climate change is mostly driven by human activity. As explained here, numbers that claim that there is a consensus are skewed; the real figure is closer to 40-43%.

5. The reason why the science stating that climate change is driven by human activity is wrong is due to one simple fact: higher temperatures result in higher levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
And here’s the all-knowing creator of House of Cards:

Hey climate-change deniers, the scientific community that predicted the #SolarEclipse2017 is the same one that says climate change is real.

- Beau Willimon


This is not how science works.

Science is about verifiable hypothesis tested against observed results. The problem with the climate change science thus far has been that its computer models have not replicated actual data gathered over time.

That does not mean that future models cannot do better, or that climate change isn’t happening. It does mean that asking the general public to accept the iron-clad nature of climate change in the same way we accept the rotation of planets would be foolhardy. The same argument that deGrasse Tyson and Willimon make could have been used at any point to freeze scientific inquiry — before Copernicus, before Darwin, before Einstein. After all, critics could have stated that the same science that allowed us to predict eclipses thousands of years ago stated that these newfangled theories were nonsense.

Shouting “science” at the moon doesn’t make critics shut up, nor should it. That’s the entire joke Mark Twain told in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, when the hero of the story uses a solar eclipse as evidence of his own providence. If you want to prove your science, prove it. But labeling something “science” so that you can use the known world to justify the unknown is merely intellectual arrogance masquerading as rational inquiry.



DeGrasse Tyson: If You Believe In Eclipses, You Must Believe In Climate Change
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
LMAO...what a crock of poo. Many real scientists have pointed out the glaring inaccuracy of climate predictions to date; it's so bad that many are embarrassed by the results and how far they miss in correlating with actual data...it barely even qualifies as "research".
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Didn't science tell us the Polar Ice Caps would be melted by now.. like 3 or 4 years ago??

Or did the eclipse screw that up??
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
STOP SAYING "CLIMATE CHANGE"!!

Of course the climate changes. It's always been changing, and we know this. This is how they set the trap and the whole planet - right and left - falls for it every time: they change the terminology. Abortion becomes "choice". Global warming becomes "climate change". How can you be against choice??? How can you deny that the climate changes??

Nobody can deny "climate change". It's a thing and it's real. The debate is, what should we do about it, and more honestly what *can* we do about it? Please do not let them suck you into "denying climate change" because that is a red herring and "gotcha".

So what if their models can predict climate change? So what? In 1,000 years this planet will surely change in a number of ways. So? We will either adapt and evolve or we'll die off. So? That's 1,000 years from now, dudes. It's not like it's going to happen overnight - BOOM, we're all fried. Climate change happens gradually, and our great great x100 grandkids aren't going to go, "Oh, they ruined the planet for us," any more than we say the people living in 1017 ruined it for us.

This is a stupid argument. Can we please stop falling for it?
 

Wishbone

New Member
STOP SAYING "CLIMATE CHANGE"!!

Of course the climate changes. It's always been changing, and we know this. This is how they set the trap and the whole planet - right and left - falls for it every time: they change the terminology. Abortion becomes "choice". Global warming becomes "climate change". How can you be against choice??? How can you deny that the climate changes??

Nobody can deny "climate change". It's a thing and it's real. The debate is, what should we do about it, and more honestly what *can* we do about it? Please do not let them suck you into "denying climate change" because that is a red herring and "gotcha".

So what if their models can predict climate change? So what? In 1,000 years this planet will surely change in a number of ways. So? We will either adapt and evolve or we'll die off. So? That's 1,000 years from now, dudes. It's not like it's going to happen overnight - BOOM, we're all fried. Climate change happens gradually, and our great great x100 grandkids aren't going to go, "Oh, they ruined the planet for us," any more than we say the people living in 1017 ruined it for us.

This is a stupid argument. Can we please stop falling for it?

:lmao: :yay:

Triple-shot espresso in the coffee this morning?
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
STOP SAYING "CLIMATE CHANGE"!!

Of course the climate changes. It's always been changing, and we know this. This is how they set the trap and the whole planet - right and left - falls for it every time: they change the terminology. Abortion becomes "choice". Global warming becomes "climate change". How can you be against choice??? How can you deny that the climate changes??

Nobody can deny "climate change". It's a thing and it's real. The debate is, what should we do about it, and more honestly what *can* we do about it? Please do not let them suck you into "denying climate change" because that is a red herring and "gotcha".

So what if their models can predict climate change? So what? In 1,000 years this planet will surely change in a number of ways. So? We will either adapt and evolve or we'll die off. So? That's 1,000 years from now, dudes. It's not like it's going to happen overnight - BOOM, we're all fried. Climate change happens gradually, and our great great x100 grandkids aren't going to go, "Oh, they ruined the planet for us," any more than we say the people living in 1017 ruined it for us.

This is a stupid argument. Can we please stop falling for it?

If it still has the Y chromosome..


Oh wait.. wrong argument.. please continue.
 

PJay

Well-Known Member
It's like with everything else they try and make us believe..they truly think if they repeat over and over people will believe it.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
It's like with everything else they try and make us believe..they truly think if they repeat over and over people will believe it.

And fact is that if they repeat it over and over, people DO believe it. Even after you show them proof that it's not true.
 

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
And fact is that if they repeat it over and over, people DO believe it. Even after you show them proof that it's not true.

The science of eclipses is a math problem. Very complex math formulas are used to not predict but to tell when eclipses will occur. The travel of celestial objects is a constant and when the math is correct we know when and where an eclipse will happen. Climate change is based on variables that are in constant change. The best they can do is gather enough data to possibly get a pattern that will provide a possible result. Math is an exact science that the formulas give us the same answer every time. Climate change is at best a collection of data points (most often selectively picked and manipulated) that will give the desired answer depending what answer is desired.
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
The science of eclipses is a math problem. Very complex math formulas are used to not predict but to tell when eclipses will occur. The travel of celestial objects is a constant and when the math is correct we know when and where an eclipse will happen. Climate change is based on variables that are in constant change. The best they can do is gather enough data to possibly get a pattern that will provide a possible result. Math is an exact science that the formulas give us the same answer every time. Climate change is at best a collection of data points (most often selectively picked and manipulated) that will give the desired answer depending what answer is desired.
I was thinking of a similar response, but you said it better than I could have.
 
Top