Ocean News

I ate a tofuna salad sandwich. Once! It wasn't anything resembling tuna salad.
Actually I prefer fresh fish salad, like red snapper, to any canned fish.

 

British Dictionary definitions for pseudoscience
pseudoscience
/ˌsjuːdəʊˈsaɪəns/
noun
1.
"a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science"


Real Science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"Prediction

This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The more unlikely that a prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, then the more convincing it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem).[30]


Testing

This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk"


AGW proponents make predictions for climate 50 and 100 years from now. Risk free predictions. Who will hold them to account then?

Predictions should distinguish from results obtainable by other alternative hypothesis or from coincidence. And the answer should not already be known.
Anthropogenic Climate Change, (ACC)? We know climate is changing and always has. That's known. Climate is changing is NOT evidence for ACC or AGW. Blaming every kind of weather from drought to storm to warming to freezing on anthropogenic carbon distinguishes nothing.

The designers of climate models claim warming follows CLOSELY CO2 and predicted it would. It hasn't.

We know from ice-cores warming elevates CO2. Co2 following warming. Outgassing of oceans and thawing tundra.
IF in addition, if CO2 caused elevated warming, they would each be a feedback loop for the other, and the system would be self enhancing runaway greenhouse effect.
Since that has never happened and isn't now, it is illogical and impossible for both, warming to elevate CO2, and CO2 to elevate warming.
Co2 as a driver of warming is eliminated, because we DO KNOW warming elevates CO2, and both can not happen.

So, the AGW predictions failed, were indistinguishable from alternative explanations had they succeeded, and claim every coincidental form of weather as man caused, could only be considered science, if acknowledged it DISPROVED AGW and anthropogenic climate change hypotheses.

Continuing to claim AGW and ACC as valid scientific hypotheses, especially since eliminated carbon drives warming as impossible, clearly puts AGW/ACC in the pretend science category!

 

Quote
Era of climate science denial is not over, study finds

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...limate-science-denial-is-not-over-study-finds

Conservative thinktanks in the US engaging in climate change have increased their attacks on science in recent years, a study of 16,000 documents finds.

Is organised climate science denial finished?

After global heat records were continually broken over the last decade, and as sea levels rose and scientists reported the accelerated melting of polar ice sheets, you might be forgiven for thinking the debate over climate change had shifted.

No more arguing over the science? It’s more about the policy now, right?

Well, wrong. At least according to a new study that has looked at 15 years worth of output from 19 conservative “thinktanks” in the United States.

“We find little support for the claim that ‘the era of science denial is over’ - instead, discussion of climate science has generally increased over the sample period,” the study concludes.

The conservative thinktanks under the microscope are the main cog in the machinery of climate science denial across the globe, pushing a constant stream of material into the public domain.

McCright said the “denial machine” had since expanded from think tanks to include bloggers and fake grassroots campaigns and was now “more diverse and seemingly ubiquitous.”

McCright added that “knowing what is going on is one thing” but knowing what to do about it was more challenging. I’ll leave you with his thoughts.

Opposing policy is one thing. Undermining, denying, obfuscating, etc. science is another. I wish I had a powerful, simple solution to counter the climate change denial movement, but I don’t. Nevertheless, at the very least, we can continue to drag them from the shadows and into the bright light of day, vigilantly document their activities, and regularly call them out over what they are doing.

Many of the 19 thinktanks analysed in the study have in the past accepted funding from fossil fuel interests, such as oil giant Exxon and the billionaire Koch brothers.

In October 2015 a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) found thinktanks that had taken corporate funding from the likes of Exxon and the Kochs were more likely to produce material designed to polarise the climate change issue.

 

Not denying science. Denying you have any valid science on AGW side.
And crony reviewed doesn't substitute for accuracy.
Warmest years on record creeping upward at a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit each year?
Ha!
Sea level rise measured n millimeter rise?
Ha!
More ice in Antarctic even while less in artic?
You should be grateful!
Melting sea ice doesn't raise water level and the arctic is all ocean.
Antarctica is land ice and if IT all melted you would indeed see some sea level rise!
Since observed data refutes you, you resort to personally attacking those opposing you.
I'm actually glad, in a way, that you and other AGWers believe so devoutly.
You deserve to fret and worry and agonize over you can't make the rest of us obey!
The world isn't doomed, just your cause!

 

Quote
McCright said the “denial machine” had since expanded to include bloggers

 

There are more and more people convinced your hypothesis is garbage.
They can read data vs predictions as well as you and I.
Or as well as I.
You don't seem to notice the data refutes your cause.

 

I'm pretty sure that next week you will be an AGW Denier. I've not given up hope for 2050.

 

Many thousands, fairly evenly distributed. Some for weather observational analysis, others for current, salinity, and temperature analysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_buoy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

PS
Yob, you are in the minority, not the majority.

 

I'm not a denier.
You can believe in phrenology if you choose, and I won't deny your right to believe.
I'm just not as gullible as AGW disciples.
And I will dissuade others from being suckered in, giving correct data, to the best of my ability.
Welcome back.
Was concerned tragedy had befallen you.

 

1000s of thermometers are sufficient to average the temperatures of all the seas?
Let's say you are in New York. We'll stick a thermometer in you and know the temperature of the entire population in NY state.
With a few 1000s, we could record the temperature of all mankind.

I'm in the minority? Funny looking minority. 73%

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/at...453308338-ocean-news-gorebal-warming-poll.png

You are part of the 27% red area, I'm in the 73% NOT red. The 73% don't all agree on what is happening, but they all reject man is the major cause of warming.

 

Quote
A Steady 57% in U.S. Blame Humans for Global Warming

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/0...-the-headline/

73% of Americans do NOT believe man is the main cause of warming or climate change.

Please attribute this information to:
Monmouth University Poll
West Long Branch, NJ 07764
www.monmouth.edu/polling
Follow on Twitter: @MonmouthPoll
CONTACTS:
For commentary on poll results:
TONY MACDONALD, Director, Urban Coast Institute
732-865-6471(cell); 732-263-5392 (office);
amacdona@monmouth.edu
For information on poll methodology:
Monmouth University Polling Institute
732-263-5860; polling@monmouth.edu
Released: Tuesday, January 5, 2016


Attached Thumbnails
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/at...453308338-ocean-news-gorebal-warming-poll.png



Your post just above, a 57% Gallop poll was March 2014


You are losing points, not only in the polls.... AND in posting outdated polls!

 

Conservative Republicans Alone on Global Warming's Timing
April 22, 2015

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182807/c...LIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

 

Yobs own link states that climate change denialism is less than 1/3 of the USA population = very large minority


Quote
70% of Americans believe in climate change!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/...gw-but-you-wouldnt-know-it-from-the-headline/

Yobs link states
Both environmental and human activity cause climate change = 34%
+ Human activity cause climate change = 27%

Climate change not happening = 22%
Not sure = 8%
Do not know = 1%
Natural changes in the environmental = 8%

34% + 27% = 61% of the USA believe in human activity causing Climate change 2016
22% + 8% = 30% of he USA believe human activity not the causing climate change "2016"
Released: Tuesday, January 5, 2016

 

I believe in climate change. I also believe it is cyclical and tied to the heat from the Sun. I also believe God, not Man, is in charge of the Universe, His Creation, and that Man has not caused climate change. Jesus saves, not socialism or social justice/redistribution from the producers of wealth to the lazy takers.
Stop feeding the crocodiles.