Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Climate change consensus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Politics is the driving force behind global warming. Maybe it's all the hot air coming from Washington.

    If we continue down the path, we will all be bankrupt in no time at all. Take Al Gore's latest scheme:

    Al Gore develops $90 trillion scheme to rebuild every city to get rid of cars


    Former Vice President Al Gore and former Mexican President Felipe Calderon have proposed that global warming should be dealt with by banning all automobiles in urban areas. The scheme would mean spending $90 trillion to redesign all cities to make mass transit and walking viable.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/al-g...ePlanToBanCars



    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      I didn't argue by weblink. I presented my arguments, and then when asked for a source, I provided a link to one of the many sources I have read over the years.
      Ah, I see.

      What? The earth's temperature has been in a state of flux since creation. There are periods in the earth's past when temperatures were warmer than they are now and periods when they were cooler. To claim that this natural cycle is being drastically affected by human activity is sheer ignorance.
      Citations, please, for the cycle not being drastically affected by human activity.
      I don't have any one source for these facts. It's just what I've gleaned from some time spent reading up on this issue over the years. Frankly, I'm increasingly baffled that it's not common knowledge.
      That's presenting an argument? Seems like an unevidenced assertion to me. I specifically asked for support for "To claim that this natural cycle is being drastically affected by human activity is sheer ignorance." You did not reply. You got any arguments, let's see 'em.

      Originally posted by JonF View Post
      I visited the site you cited and at Qualifications of Signers I find 39 climatologists. One might possibly consider Atmospheric Science or Earth Science or Environmental Science or Environmental Engineering also relevant. So somewhere between 39/31487 = 0.12% and (39+112+94+487+253)/31487 = 3.1% of the signers might be qualified to have an opinion. I don't find that impressive.
      No response? Does this mean you acknowledge that the number of qualified signers at your link is infinitesimal?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Correlation does not imply causation.

        The earth went through a significant warming period beginning around 1800 following the Little Ice Age and rose pretty steadily from that point, so it's absurd to attribute any recent warming to the industrial revolution.
        Does not follow. You need to present evidence and/or argumentation why we should accept this claim, especially why the data showing the correlation between human activity and climate change is rendered moot. Don't tell me the "hockey stick" graph has been debunked, it''s been replicated by many researchers. From Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia:


        (Lots more graphs at that link). I see a noticeable drop starting around 1800, then a small rise, then a small drop, then a significant rise starting around 1900, then a small drop around 1940, then a big jump starting around 1970. Could you please indicate where your steady rise since 1800 is seen?

        Then there's the "inconvenient truth" of the nearly two-decade pause which has defied every global warming model and predecition and has flummoxed the alarmists who are at a loss to explain where all the "missing" heat went.

        Source: BBC

        Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown.

        The researchers says this slow-moving current could continue to divert heat into the deep seas for another decade.

        http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988

        © Copyright Original Source


        Except that the ocean theory hasn't panned out for them:

        Source: NASA

        The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

        Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably.

        [...]

        In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world's ocean -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

        http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321

        © Copyright Original Source

        The ol' "We don't know everything therefore we know nothing" ploy. Fail. Discuss the evidence that man's actions are the major cause for the current trend.

        I point out, again, that the most obvious answer in the best tradition of Ockham's Razor is that the heat was simply never here to begin with.
        Sorry, the heat is there, just not everywhere.

        Robust warming of the global upper ocean, as quoted at Does ocean cooling prove global warming has ended?:

        Leviticus 2009 pg. 14:
        Last edited by JonF; 01-23-2015, 11:45 AM.

        Comment


        • Are those graphs based on raw data, or have they been "adjusted"?

          Source: Forbes

          To most people, the hottest temperatures ever “recorded” would imply that quality controlled thermometers registered higher readings during the past year than had ever occurred before. If you believe that this is what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) means by hottest temperatures ever “recorded,” then you are wrong.

          Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ord-this-year/

          © Copyright Original Source


          Here's a look at NASA's data before and after recent "adjustments":
          1998changesannotated.gif
          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...the-year-2000/

          Source: Breitbart

          The fact that supposedly reputable scientists can make these dishonest adjustments and get away with it is, notes long-time sceptic Christopher Booker, one of the more remarkable anomalies of the great climate change scam.

          When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

          http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014...nasa-and-noaa/

          © Copyright Original Source

          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • {posted too soon}
            Last edited by JonF; 01-23-2015, 12:44 PM.

            Comment


            • So your list of anti-climate-change signers is off the table because the number of qualified signers is infinitesimal. Great.

              Forbes and Breitbart? You're kidding. Both of those are just more unsupported assertions. I am not aware of any adjustments that are not objectively justified. You know of any? With evidence for the claims of unjustified adjustments?

              Plus we are not talking about U.S. temperatures, we are discussing global climate change. So the U.S. temperature graph is not relevant.

              Speaking of unsupported assertions, I'm still waiting for a response to:

              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              I didn't argue by weblink. I presented my arguments, and then when asked for a source, I provided a link to one of the many sources I have read over the years.
              Ah, I see.

              What? The earth's temperature has been in a state of flux since creation. There are periods in the earth's past when temperatures were warmer than they are now and periods when they were cooler. To claim that this natural cycle is being drastically affected by human activity is sheer ignorance.
              Citations, please, for the cycle not being drastically affected by human activity.
              I don't have any one source for these facts. It's just what I've gleaned from some time spent reading up on this issue over the years. Frankly, I'm increasingly baffled that it's not common knowledge.
              That's presenting an argument? Seems like an unevidenced assertion to me. I specifically asked for support for "To claim that this natural cycle is being drastically affected by human activity is sheer ignorance." You did not reply. You got any arguments, let's see 'em.
              And yet more unsupported assertions:

              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Correlation does not imply causation.

              The earth went through a significant warming period beginning around 1800 following the Little Ice Age and rose pretty steadily from that point, so it's absurd to attribute any recent warming to the industrial revolution.
              Does not follow. You need to present evidence and/or argumentation why we should accept this claim, especially why the data showing the correlation between human activity and climate change is rendered moot. Don't tell me the "hockey stick" graph has been debunked, it''s been replicated by many researchers. From Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia:


              (Lots more graphs at that link). I see a noticeable drop starting around 1800, then a small rise, then a small drop, then a significant rise starting around 1900, then a small drop around 1940, then a big jump starting around 1970. Could you please indicate where your steady rise since 1800 is seen?
              Do you ever support your claims or do you just link to looney tunes?

              Comment


              • No, the petition is not off the table. Whether or not the signers meet your personal approval is irrelevant. Same with other sources I've presented. Instead of raging with genetic fallacies, you might try actually responding.

                And, no, the "adjustments" are not localized to the US. As the articles I posted explained, similar "adjustments" have been made by " climatologists " in other countries. It doesn't many of these sharp upward "adjustments" to skew the global average.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  No, the petition is not off the table. Whether or not the signers meet your personal approval is irrelevant. Same with other sources I've presented. Instead of raging with genetic fallacies, you might try actually responding.

                  And, no, the "adjustments" are not localized to the US. As the articles I posted explained, similar "adjustments" have been made by " climatologists " in other countries. It doesn't many of these sharp upward "adjustments" to skew the global average.
                  Most of the adjustments were made due to things like station relocations and to standardize time of measurement. Berkeley Earth went through and redid the analysis without the adjustments (i.e., it treated a site with a station move as two separate sites, etc.). Guess what? its results were indistinguishable from NASA and NOAA's.
                  http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

                  So, if you think there's a grand conspiracy going on, then you really need to come up with some evidence for it.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    I like this argument. I grow weary of those who would discount all evidence preserved by Christians for the events of the new testament, and who would try to claim it is logically unsound to place any trust in those writings and demand that those few secular writings that do exist are insufficient to place any trust in what Christians believe - some even try to claim that this 'paucity' of evidence (after throwing out ALL Christian sources) might even imply Jesus himself is a myth.

                    As you point out, IF an event as massive as Vesuvius can vanish into written history save one document, then most clearly so could the events surrounding Christs death. And there is therefore no logical reason to conclude anything at all about the historical plausibility of what Christians believe because we don't have a large number of non-Christian documents supporting the event.

                    Vesuvius is confirmed by other means. But the resurrection, or the life teachings of the carpenter from Nazareth known as Jesus, are not going to be preserved outside of those for whom it is a significant event. Indeed, think about it:

                    How many people could be an eyewitness of these events yet NOT eventually become a Christian?
                    How could any person truly be an eye-witness of these events and NOT be counted among those these modern historians wish to discount?

                    The Early Christians were not men of secular value, and outside Christian circles there was no need or desire to mark these events in any permanent way. What is, in fact, remarkable, is that we DO have secular sources. The argument SHOULD in fact be turned on its head.

                    What remarkable, world changing event happened that allows us to know anything at all about this obscure carpenter from Nazareth? This was no ordinary man, and no ordinary set of events.


                    Jim
                    At the risk of being a wiseacre, I feel like I could very easily turn the above into an argument in favor of alien encounters.
                    I'm not here anymore.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                      At the risk of being a wiseacre, I feel like I could very easily turn the above into an argument in favor of alien encounters.

                      Jesus was, of course, most alien.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        No, the petition is not off the table. Whether or not the signers meet your personal approval is irrelevant. Same with other sources I've presented. Instead of raging with genetic fallacies, you might try actually responding.
                        It has nothing to do with personal approval. Personal approval is as irrelevant as most of the signers. Let's have a real look at what it takes to sign that petition:

                        1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

                        2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

                        3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

                        4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

                        5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

                        6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

                        7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.


                        Items #3, #4, #5 could be met by most high school students. Item #7 is as broad brush as you can get considering the vast majority of engineers aren't doing anything remotely related to the environment unless we leave the standards so loose that my energy efficient lighting layouts could qualify me. For that matter, roughly 1/3 of the total number of 'scientists' are engineers. Engineers aren't scientists. It's a bachelor of science degree, and you get a lot of physics, a lot of math, some chemistry, and a little biology, but that does not a scientist make.

                        What we have here is not a genetic fallacy but a misrepresentation of qualifications. Using these sorts of standards, we should be seeing biologists every time we get sick. They're clearly just as knowledgeable and qualified as an M.D.


                        ETA: I'd dare anyone who takes this list seriously to start picking random names from the list of signers and googling them. The first two PhDs I looked at were a toxicologist and someone who works in studying/developing cattle feed.
                        Last edited by Carrikature; 01-24-2015, 01:57 AM.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                          Mustering arguments against consensus, MM is currently populating a stadium with naysaying-"scientists" discovered through a petition, ignoring how the criterion for inclusion would claim his veterinarian for climate science.
                          395 of them, in fact.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

                            4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed...
                            Items #3, #4.. could be met by most high school students.
                            No. Unless, of course, your average high school student is knowledgeable in fluid dynamics as well as atmospheric chemistry, which I highly doubt.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Instead of raging with genetic fallacies, you might try actually responding.
                              In reality, it's not a genetic fallacy to assess credentials when those credentials are being touted as support for a position.
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                No. Unless, of course, your average high school student is knowledgeable in fluid dynamics as well as atmospheric chemistry, which I highly doubt.
                                Read it again. "Interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed" is met by basic chemistry and geology. If you can do oxidation/reduction (taught in high school), you've covered interactions and behaviors. Nothing in there specifies fluid dynamics or atmospheric chemistry. It dare not, lest it eliminate potential signers.
                                I'm not here anymore.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X