This is an article (same one) that shows that they are 'fast tracking' the evidence to prove GW. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! If the science was so solid and all the evidence to prove it is in, why are they now still trying to make the pieces fit? In reality fast track means stampede the thinking and act as bullies to make everyone get on board.
Just look at CR's explanation where he quotes, "in large part by using highly accurate estimates." Ha! Ha! Their 'estimates' are really guesstimates and have so far proven INACCURATE! And where has estimates ever entered into exact true science? If you make a prediction, that prediction should come reasonably true or it only proves that the predictor is a phony and should get a real job.
They don't need no stinkin' proof. They don't need no stinkin' science. They don't need no stinkin' data. All they need is smoother lies. And people who are numb that they can't feel it when these so called scientists stick it in you.
There are several disciplines that collect data that are not explicitly amenable to the scientific method, which requires a controlled environment in which you change a variable and record changes, then see if the operant variable changes the dependent variable in those exact controlled conditions, and can be replicated over and over, by many independent experimenters. Many disciplines instead use predominantly inferential modeling , sampling, or long period observational studies. Weather falls in-between using some Scientific method, some long term case study and a whole butt-load of inferential modeling and statistics. This is because it is almost impossible to make a controlled environment in which all the dependent and operant variables are known, and even if you could, to alter one, and repeat the exact conditions and variable pool exactly enough to replicate the experiment. In short the bell jar required is the whole earth, every tide, hump, bird, fish, wind gust, temperature change on it, and exact knowledge of every event in the last billion or two years of its history. This doesn't mean cogent and compelling data cannot be gathered and compiled , or that projections cannot be made. It means the scientific method is a particular thing, and has a limited place within the study field. The method is much more employed and employable in chemistry and general physics where conditions of experiment can be more easily and measurably met.
If they could predict something before it happened I would be more impressed.
This is clearly an attempt to blame everything on global warming. I don't think science is involved at all.
For a small fee, I could create a model that worked in only two days that said the recent "wild weather" was caused, at least in part, by global warming.
In fact, for a small fee I could tell you now that anything you liked was caused by global warming and I could do it in advance!
From your link,
"They are developing a new scientific model that will shrink to as little as three days the time it takes to establish or rule out a link to climate change, in large part by using highly accurate estimates of sea surface temperatures rather than waiting for the actual readings to be published – a process that can often take months."
It is about using computers, not about scientists taking a vote.
Global warming is not a science, it is a theory, like most theories, that is based upon observation and applied science. Therefore, it is a conclusion reached by the use of the scientific method, and in no way makes the scientific method unnecessary. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Efforts to downplay the significance of climate change resemble the determined efforts of tobacco lobbyists, in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer, to prevent or delay the introduction of regulation. Lobbyists attempted to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. They worked to discredit the scientists involved, to dispute their findings, and to create and maintain an apparent controversy by promoting claims that contradicted scientific research. ""Doubt is our product," boasted a now infamous 1969 industry memo. Doubt would shield the tobacco industry from litigation and regulation for decades to come." In 2006, George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian about similarities between the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt.
Former National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Frederick Seitz, who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair, earned about US$585,000 in the 1970s and 1980s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, went on to chair groups such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the George C. Marshall Institute alleged to have made efforts to "downplay" global warming. Seitz stated in the 1980s that "Global warming is far more a matter of politics than of climate." Seitz authored the Oregon Petition, a document published jointly by the Marshall Institute and Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in opposition to the Kyoto protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed:
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. ... We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that this petition, which he criticizes as misleading and tied to industry funding, "has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth." Monbiot has written about another group founded by the tobacco lobby, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), that now campaigns against measures to combat global warming. In again trying to manufacture the appearance of a grass-roots movement against "unfounded fear" and "over-regulation," Monbiot states that TASSC "has done more damage to the campaign to halt [climate change] than any other body."
No science is ever settled, if we believed the science is settled, we would still believe the sun revolves around the Earth.
Every scientific theory or hypothesis must remain open to investigation, otherwise dogma rules.
Global warming would happen sunday
And the reason that this proposed model will work while virtually all of the others have been embarrassing failures and a terrible waste of taxpayer money is............????????????????
They cant tell the difference between a thunderstorm caused
by man made climate change or a normal one .
there is no difference.
Weird and extreme weather is being fast tracked to conclude that they were caused by man without having to bother with the scientific method. Now it will require a vote of 51% of global warming "scientists" who were hand picked by their peers. Is this because so-called "global warming" is already a settled science and doesn't need to be studied any longer?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-to-fasttrack-evidence-linking-global-warming-to-wild-weather-9773767.html
Do so-called you mean the so-called "scientific method "of so-called "True Scientists"?
You are making this up. Very dishonest
