Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[unbeliever]

Both "global warming" and a "new ice age" would result in the UK becoming much colder.

 

Warming would cause polar (arctic) sea ice to melt, putting more cold (and fresh) water in the northern part of the Atlantic, weakening the effect of the "Atlantic Conveyer" and driving the Gulf Stream further south.

 

 

Cooling would cause the northern part of the Atlantic to cool, driving the Gulf Stream further south.

 

The Gulf Stream is one of the greatest influences on our climate - along with the simple fact of being next to the eastern edge of the ocean, ensuring its relatively benign and mild nature.

 

(London is further north than St Johns, and Edinburgh further north than Moscow, for example)

 

If you can't make falsifiable predictions, you're not doing science.

Climate scientists need to either hold themselves to this universal scientific standard, shut up, or start calling themselves something other than scientists.

[convert]

Agreed. The climate 'scientists' need to make their RAW data available, so the their 'predictions' can be checked.

 

Unfortunately, when your funding relies on your work proving what those who control the purse strings want, then you can hardly be called impartial.

 

 

Just a reminder that we already have a 'global warming', 'climate change / chaos' thread here.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527350

[InigoMontoya]

Agreed. The climate 'scientists' need to make their RAW data available, so the their 'predictions' can be checked.

 

Unfortunately, when your funding relies on your work proving what those who control the purse strings want, then you can hardly be called impartial.

 

 

Just a reminder that we already have a 'global warming', 'climate change / chaos' thread here.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527350

 

 

Climate change scientists (no need for the quotation marks, it's what these people do for a living) have made their raw data available, and it, and their conclusions is available for peer review. (i.e. to other people who do this for a living.)

[unbeliever]

Climate change scientists (no need for the quotation marks, it's what these people do for a living) have made their raw data available, and it, and their conclusions is available for peer review. (i.e. to other people who do this for a living.)

 

Oh great. This must have happened in the last half an hour.

 

Where to I download the raw temperature station data?

 

I'll give you a clue. You can't.

[flamingjimmy]

Odd that the religion's name has switched from 'Global Warning'- could that be because of lack of evidence?

 

Nope, it's because of the confusion caused by morons going:

 

'duh, well it's cold at the moment, so global warming clearly is a conspiracy'

[DnAuK]

And rewind a couple of hundred more and there were <1 billion people and the only thing they did was burn wood...

 

You can't easily use flowing water without the use of steel turbines and concrete to anchor them in... Much the same as wind, but obviously far more restricted in where you can site the turbines (although you get better predictability for generation).

 

---------- Post added 08-07-2015 at 10:00 ----------

 

Except across an entire continent, North America. The native Indians didn't do much agriculture from what I remember.

And I suspect that you over estimate how much forest had been felled just three hundred or four hundred years ago.

 

Not polluting then, bio-fuel.

Where all animals dump their waste... You know where bears do it right, in the woods.

Species go extinct all the time, but this doesn't cause climate change.

Self control of our population size.

 

We were much cleaner as a species before the industrial revolution.

 

Well said that man

[convert]

Climate change scientists (no need for the quotation marks, it's what these people do for a living) have made their raw data available, and it, and their conclusions is available for peer review. (i.e. to other people who do this for a living.)

 

Excellent, please provide links to the RAW data, or retract your comment.

[unbeliever]

But only after the data is 'corrected'... Ie they add several degrees to it, because otherwise it doesn't match the computer models.

 

In fact it doesn't match the models anyway despite the "corrections".

[Cyclone]

The models are wrong every time, which makes me wonder why they bother to make predictions using them at all, they're clearly still very much a work in progress.

 

Modelling the climate is hard, I get it, but don't pretend to understand it when we clearly don't.

[truman]

The models are wrong every time, which makes me wonder why they bother to make predictions using them at all, they're clearly still very much a work in progress.

 

Modelling the climate is hard, I get it, but don't pretend to understand it when we clearly don't.

 

how long have the models been running for? What temperature did they predict for "now" when they were first started? Do we know?