Meanwhile in the reality based universe the smoke from Oz has delivered apocalyptic skies in NZ. Embedding the tweet for the media animations of the smoke pall 1213655314601365505 is not a valid tweet id
As I explained already, you thing about "global cooling" isn't a differing opinion. It's disinformation. If you want people to engage with you in this thread, you need to do better than that. Balls in your court.
Can you link to a dire prediction for the earths future that had scientific consensus from any of those decades? Or are you simply saying you refuse to recognise the scientific consensus?
You know that is a fake climate denier meme right? Meanwhile the science was the opposite .... https://time.com/4778937/fake-time-cover-ice-age/
Sorry, but I was alive in 1970's so I know 'The Coming Ice Age' was a thing. I lived it. You can spin all you like but you'll just get dizzy. Would you like other examples. We can also go the other way and bring up embarrassing examples of ridiculous dire global warming predictions.
Really, how? I acknowledged that man is changing the climate, I just refused to think the world is a barren wasteland in 12 years.
Tamino with some solid and simple analysis of Australia. A mix of bad luck on rainfall combined with record high temperatures. i.e. exactly as predicted. It certainly has made the bushfire problem worse. But Australia has had dry years before, and will again. Although 2019 was the driest on record, there’s no trend detectable in rainfall amounts, at least not yet; it looks like an unfortunate but random occurrence. This isn’t climate change, it’s bad luck. This year was the hottest on record for Australia, especially their daily high temperatures: This too has made the bushfire problem worse — much worse. Australia has had hot years before, but nothing even close to this year. Without climate change this would have been impossible. THIS IS CLIMATE CHANGE.
Land management failures are also to blame, similar to California. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/traditional-owners-predicted-bushfire-disaster/11700320 So, climate change and government mismanagement cause disasters. Who would have predicted that?
Are you agnostic about every god? Do you think that the old Egyptian gods may exist? Do you think the old Greek gods may exist? Do you think that the old Aztec/Mayan gods may exist? There is no proof that they do not exist, so by your argument, we should all be agnostic about them.
Well yeah. e.g. building housing into bushland with high fire risk. And add to it, the failure of Scotty and co to put money into firefighting resources We've known this stuff for years.
I don't know about the Time magazine cover or any story but there was an episode of the BBC Horizon about the coming Ice Age in the mid 70's by a fella called Nigel Calder, IIRC. But you're right to point that it wasn't the scientific consensus which was pointing in the opposite direction, even then. But it's important to differentiate between what's understood by climate scientists and what's understood by the public or, (even worse), journalists that write stories about the matter.
It is also important to differentiate between science and hyperbole. I believe in climate change and the science behind it. I just don't believe in climate change for profit.
I do know a specific example of this from the 80s when sea level rise burst on to the scene. In those times, sea level rise was the more scary prediction of the models and so I first heard about all of this under than moniker. Now my dad, being a physical, data guy, had no data to support sea level rise. And he had decades of data including a lot of his own unique measurements. So this threw him into direct conflict with the "model" guys, who of course lacked data in those very early times. In the end dad lost that argument - spectacularly. (Although his argument was mainly that you couldn't be sure until you had data observations that bore out the models). So the consensus was not always around. And this is always the trouble with single study bias, where someone makes some far out findings and then everyone overreacts about it.
I don't? What makes you say that. Granted I still grill my steaks over charcoal but does that really mean I am the problem? I'll bet my carbon footprint is less than yours.
Currently perhaps, life-time I doubt it, you are much older and I believe retired. Here is what scientists do say about global warming https://futurism.com/heres-what-real-climate-scientists-have-to-say-about-global-warming https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/global-warming-happening-and-humans-are-primary-cause
I just want to bump this. In the last 10 days we had some great discussion bought by @Chicago76 and others. We have a guy on the thread who worked for NOAA. Other posters with expertise to bring. Until recently i did work on the dark side It's really a shame if we can't focus on the real stuff, rather than engaging on stuff that has been debunked 1000 times. I mean we are seeing apocalyptic results of climate change in Oz right now. My mates in NZ are posting photos of red skies and smelling smoke in Auckland - over 4000km away Maybe its time to focus on what matters
I think the point is that you can't go beyond the data but, once the amount of data goes beyond a certain amount and 'degree' of quality, you HAVE to change your view. In that sense there's never an experiment that 'fails' as most people would think of it. ANY result tells us something. So if your dad's data indicated one thing and he knew his methods were sound and the basic hypothesis was valid, it would take a considerable amount of data, (which he may not know to be accurate or the experimental methods might be flawed), to 'dislodge', as it were.