Newfie wrote:Statistically insignificant. If you look at the chart you see similar deviations, plus and minus, along the entire line. So this is nothing new. It may well just reflect the level of accuracy of the measurement. The long term trend still continues. Now if this trend were to continue for a few more years, add 3 or more Dara points then it would be significant.
But keel watching and get back to us in as the data develops.
EnergyUnlimited wrote:Remarks below are not meant to deny CC motion, which I think is a reasonable one but I found it a very worrying trend to call plenty of nonsense recently published in many serious journals to be "scientific facts".
It is a sad situation that quality of scientific investigation is falling down in last decade or two.
A lot of garbage is being published in areas as different as high energy physics where micro black holes and additional dimensions were considered as some expected entities about to be found in LHC experiments.
All that seemed an utter nonsense for me from the start.
Thousands of die hards are struggling to deliver "Theory of Everything" out of current versions of string theories, despite that something like 10^265000 of different Calabi Yau manifolds might be unfolded out of those 10 or 11 dimensions and each needs separate investigation to assess its viability in our Universe. Good luck with a task.
We are also observing "Muliverse religion" grounded in unfounded beliefs that something was inflated in the past in one of countless possible ways. That is simply not falsifiable, eg not a science.
Chemistry is not in a better shape at all. Substantial numbers of garbage is published for example in organic chemistry area where non reproductible procedures are frequently published as working.
Reasonably skilled in the art reader of such publications can easily point out obvious errors on experimenter side so it is not surprise to him at all that published procedure cannot work even in theory. Degradation of skill is evident here.
There is a plenty of evidence that we are replacing proper scientific investigation with wishful thinking, pressure to publish that something was discovered even if it wasn't and similar other fraudulent practices.
On the top of it there is a dramatic decay of skill of new waves of "scientists".
For example younger chemists are displaying abyssymal level of knowledge and lack of ability to work with relatively simple chemicals in safe and productive manner, what was unseen 20 or 30 years ago.
My observations are suggesting that our society is transforming from a reasonably educated one to something what resembles idiocracy.
"Science" operating in such society should always be taken with a grain of salt and treated with suspicion until proven otherwise.
Cog wrote:What I've learned is climate change gurus hate satellite data showing a cooling trend. That is what I've learned here.
KaiserJeep wrote:Newfie, I must have posted links to the Earth-facing satellite dataset at least a half dozen times. You know, the satellite data that John R, Christy and Roy Spencer are in charge of at Huntsville, believed to be the most accurate upper atmosphere temperature dataset we have, but which do not match any of the existing climate models. That in fact show a cooling trend where the models indicate a warming should exist.
Recently, bullets were fired at their offices by eco-terrorists, who were angry that actual climate scientists dispute AGW.
I happen to believe that nothing - absolutely nothing whatsoever - that any peak oil forum member posts about AGW, whether in dispute or support of the theory, is meaningful. Nor do most people ever get past "the greenhouse effect is real, so the AGW theory is correct" level of argument.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: ozcad and 9 guests