a reply to: WeAre0ne
Let me just begin by saying that if we had all the answers, our models would be accurate...or at least closer than they are. The fact that we cannot
predict worth a bent penny displays the ignorance (I do not mean that in a derogatory fashion) that exists and the lack of understanding of how our
climate system works.
If the debate were over, then it would not be theory, but just fact.
I will present a possible alternative to man made (keep in mind I do not exempt man from being at least partially responsible) climate change.
If the magnetosphere weakening is 100% responsible (a supposition for argument sake) and the weakening began roughly the same time as the industrial
revolution, how would we separate one effect from the other?
You are all sold on co2, and that is the beginning of a good argument. If the climate has been warming due to the increasingly weak magnetic field,
then it follows that the oceans have been warming as well. As oceans warm they also release increasingly larger amounts of co2 stored, no?
Therefore, if the magnetic field were the sole affect responsible for warming then we would expect to see increased levels of co2. Then you get a
positive feedback situation going..one that will result in additional greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere: methane by the thousands of
metric tons. That is the real danger.
My argument is that given the 15% weaker magnetic field has a huge effect on the radiation reaching the earth that you cannot attribute climate change
to man, at least solely. To attribute climate change to man's activities solely is not only disingenuous but is false to a, virtually, criminal level.
Do you ever hear these climate change bishops mention the magnetosphere and it's affect on the climate? Hmm...no. Why? Perhaps because there is no
money to be made there. Follow the money and it raises some suspicions, or should, about some people pushing the climate change (formerly known as
global warming) religion.
I have no doubt that man has had an affect on climate change. I also have no doubt that we cannot, with current faulty climate models, accurately
predict climate change. Nor can we truly know exactly how much of an effect man has had...specially when those scientists are not being honest with
us. Leaving out critical affects such as the magnetosphere from the discussion altogether suggests an agenda and spin.
Therefore, by the simple definition of scientific method, we cannot claim to truly understand it and to claim otherwise is man's ignorance, once
again, in motion.
To any thinking individual this debate is far from over. When a working model that can predict with some accuracy future climate change (or even past
climate change by plugging in the correct historical data) then I will accept whatever verdicts are presented.
As stated: The failure to, with any accuracy, predict anything, whether historical or future, invalidates any claims made. The claims may be
true...but the proof is not there. Exercise scientific method and then tell me we actually have a clue.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
When we analyze our data we discover surprises. Unexpected results simply means our hypothesis is lacking.
To accept man-made climate change dogma without debate, without question is disingenuous to a degree bordering on insanity.
edit on 8-7-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)