Bitcoin Forum

am just trying to understand why some people in society are still skeptical about climate change even though there are scientific proof.

For the same reasons that people believe the Earth is flat or that vaccines don't work - they don't understand science, and think that somehow opinions are as equally valid as facts.

In addition to this, there are "scientists" out there denouncing facts. These people are handed massive amounts of cash by Dark, Slick companies to bend the facts to suit their narrative.

Unfortunately we live in a society where you can cut yourself of from any opinion or facts you don't like, and just sit there in your own bubble of misinformation.

Like the people in our streets say when they are doing something crazy.

"It's your own choice and this is our trip."

But you don't get to choose if facts are true or not. That's what makes them facts.

These people sadly choose not to believe these facts.

Climate change is one of the biggest problem that everyone should be aware of and I don't know if they are just ignoring this fact or they don't want to get involve thinking of a solution.

Because false information and misleading statistics make it difficult to understand exactly what is happening. Vaccines are no longer being used to prevent disease, but are being used as a tool for global eugenics, you only need to look at the poisons being added to vaccines, and the results of infecting and poisoning helathy babies to realise the truth. Similarly, the use of targetted climate change as a weapon of war, and the experiments to develop these, are possibly more damaging than the actions of consumers. Well maybe the constant destruction of trees and hedges is probably more damaging than the use of modern well maintained diesel vehicles. Electric vehicles export pollution from the cities into the countryside, but very few reports give enough factual analysis to establish this, because the governments want to be able to control vehicles from remote locations.

Some people are skeptical about global warming because they think that earth has been taking yet another turn. I mean earth has phases from the its begining. So, climate change is a sign of this new era. That's why, people think there is no global warming.

Well if you mention what proof it is easier to answer :) and I think they mainly doubt why things change not that the change they see is real.

The main problem is that the climate always change over long periods of time, so there is always something to blame. We have gone from hot climate to ice age and back so many times, it might not be a problem many could arguee.

Can you really prove that the amount of dimming vs the amount of heat absorption is heating us, that no natural causes is to blame(sun etc)?

The next thing comes down to simple psychology, human brains do very bad with change, especially for the worse, and we rather blame nature then accept being part of said change.
We also must come to realization of the situation, something that requires humans to read up on it and focus on it, which they most likely won´t. If media gave them a false view, it is even less likely they will ever come to see the situation with pure logical thinking or even read sources stating opposing facts :S

Good luck!

Remember when people put uranium in their sodas and smoke tobacco regularly? Remember what they told people who said those things are dangerous?

We sadly live in a world of information overload. With all that information around, people end up just choosing to believe what they "feel" to be true.

There's that same mistaken argument again - there are no opposing facts. The facts are unequivocal and undisputed that climate change is real and man-made. There are opposing opinions, but they are just that - opinions.

It's either people's deniability or their enigmatic ignorance that hinders their own unique awareness on the planet and the changes in
the climate today. Climate change and global warming is serious, it's unprecedented and is accelerating alongside pollution and depletion
of natural resources. Social media and the growing number of news and documentaries throughout the years will attest to the fact that
climate change has already begun years ago, were headed to an unknown outcome if things get seriously worse. Ignorance is bliss.

Climate change do have scientific proofs, concrete evidences, and strong observably effect on our Earth today. However, despite these justifications and exemplifications, there are some people who are still skeptical about it. Why? Well, I think that the reason why people are skeptical about the climate change issue is because people love to make excuses. I mean, we are afraid of the duties and responsibilities that were given to us. Thus, they think that when they start contradicting a certain concept, they will not obliged anymore to take over. Furthermore, one reason I think also is because of the thinking that: if I am not feeling the effect, then I will not do anything. Meaning, if its effects on us  is something we do not yet feel, then nothing we will do.

Really? That's an interesting OPINION you have.

I find that climate cycles are something that are not talked about enough. I certainly don't think that what humans are doing has no effect on the environment, but we have a very limited data set in terms of the history of the earth. So often people talk about climate change, but it's so rare for people to acknowledge that it's (at least in part) a natural cycle. Another thing that bugs me is that in popular media sometimes so much responsibility is put on the end consumer, average people. If all the people in the world stop letting their vehicles idle when they aren't driving and start using reusable bags at the grocery store, it will still be a drop in the ocean compared to the effects industry and agriculture have on the environment. Talk about climate change is often a political stunt or an ad campaign. The issue is so complex. If everybody changes their light bulbs to some more environmentally-friendly ones, that may be a good thing, but you also have to take into account that a new factory had to be create to produce all those light bulbs. I've heard similar things about electric cars. Sure, it's great that electric cars don't burn fuel, but whats potential damage do the production and disposal of those huge batteries do to the environment.

You misunderstand the distinction between opinions and facts. If you would like to provide evidence that climate change isn't happening, please feel free to do so.



We have a data set going back literally hundreds of thousands of years. This is in absolutely no way a "natural cycle":

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-021116.jpeg

There's a fair amount of propaganda on "climate change" regarding weather "changes" on the western coast of the USA, which is actually directly attributable to the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), a natural 60-80 year cycle.

Obviously attributing climate to a natural cycle doesn't fit the desired narratives.

That's another great example of an opinion. And now here are the facts:

https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/PDO_vs_Temp.gif

This is in no small part because those who believe in global warming refuse to debate those who want more information. Anyone who does not blindly support the global warming theory is shouted down, and in the case of Exxon recently, called a criminal.

The fact is that temperature measurements from more than 50 or so years ago is horribly imprecise, and the change over the last two generations is little more than a statistical anomaly.

Further, the global warming theory fails to account for the ice age, and the subsequent thawing. The world is subject to a cycle of temperature changes. Modern technology may or may not be accelerating this cycle, however history has shown us that both humans and the world will survive.

This is provably incorrect.

It has been calculated (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163#s0050) that there is a >99.999% probability that the global temperature rise "is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere".


https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bb9cae915a03ee55e924384b6739aa93-c

Atmospheric CO₂ has stayed within 2 standard deviations of the mean for the last 800,000 years at least. In the last 100 years, we have catapulted the levels up to over 5 standard deviations away from the mean. That means there is a less than 0.0000001% chance that this is a "statistical anomaly".




The human race will survive, sure. But when sea levels rise, the land becomes too barren to farm and there is global famine and drought, billions will die.

I am not sure if you are aware, but water will expand roughly 8% when frozen. This is another way of saying that the area water takes up will decrease by roughly 8% when it melts (when it is no longer frozen).

I have not (and will not) reviewed that study, however it is one study, and there are other ways to evaluate what data is relevant and draw conclusions. Unfortunately, anyone who even questions the conclusion of global warming is shouted down, so there is little to no debate within the scientific community on the matter.

Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

Skepticism revolves around the kind of climate change. Simple climate change is all around us all the time. Even equatorial jungles have climate change when it rains and when it doesn't.

Global warming and global cooling has been going on in cycles for a long time. The idea that we can do much of anything about climate change is what skeptics are all about.

8)

It's actually closer to 9%. Regardless, sea levels will rise because the majority of the ice is not currently in the sea, but above it. When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters.

http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2014/5/12/antarctic-ice-melt/jcr:content/headlineImage.adapt.1460.high.antarctic_west_glacier_051114.1400010236638.jpg



I have done zero shouting down. I'm the one providing evidence and facts for my position. You're the one refusing to read or respond to them. If anyone is ignoring the other side here, it's you.

Bah. You can't even read a sentence and understand it.

Let's try again, factboy (actually a simple propagandist).

There's a fair amount of propaganda on "climate change" regarding weather "changes" on the western coast of the USA, which is actually directly attributable to the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), a natural 60-80 year cycle.

When it all melts?

What part of which IPCC report says that has a remote chance of happening?

Asserting that is scientific opinion is an outright lie.

Calling someone "factboy" as an insult is a damning indictment of your own intelligence: "Look at this guy caring about facts and the truth! What a loser! I don't care about facts. I only use baseless opinions."

Yes, temperature changes in the Northern Pacific fluctuate with the PDO. However, the global trend of warming continues despite this.



Please provide a direct quote for where I ever mentioned the IPCC. Nice strawman, though.

Once again, I never said that and never mentioned the IPCC. You are attacking an argument I did not make. That's the literal definition of a strawman.

Nice move to ignore the actual facts, figures and studies I've presented and instead to attempt to argue over the semantics of language. It's a classic loser's tactic.

FROM WIKIPEDIA.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

I am only asking for authoritative facts on a wild assertion you made. I have not made a straw man argument, that's ridiculous. I only point out that authoritative and reputable peer reviewed science en mass refutes your argument.

But perhaps you have better facts than the IPCC.

Are you going to share them with us? I'm certain a lot of people would like to know if there is going to be a 70 meter sea level rise, which was "one of your facts."

I really don't know how many times I have to explain this. I never claimed this, and I made no mention of the IPCC. You made this up and then attacked it. That's called a strawman.

My point is that there is enough ice to raise sea levels by 70 meters. That's a fact. Whether it all melts in a hundred years or a million years, I don't know, nobody knows, and I never claimed otherwise.

Please continue to ignore the proven 99.999% link between human activity and global warming and the >5 sigma change in the CO₂ level (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4666163.msg42656168#msg42656168) that I linked to earlier. I appreciate that it's difficult to refute such overwhelming evidence, especially with zero facts of your own.

Some people are skeptical about climate change because all of them don't have care on our world. That's sad because there is really a few ones who understands climate change scientifically yet some of them were being skeptical. I think this behavior is being selfish as we tend to just think of ourselves, something that we could have benifit. We all should be aware of what is happening in our world because it continues to change positively and negatively.

Still skirting the issue, using lame dodges, and goalpost shifting?

Here is what you said.

Regardless, sea levels will rise because the majority of the ice is not currently in the sea, but above it. When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters.

Now you claim what? That it will all melt, but you don't know when? What facts, if any, do you have to support the wild fantasy that all the ice will melt?

I'm sure you've got some facts, right?

If not, then let me suggest it's okay to simply admit that you believe in the cause, and may have exaggerated to create a fear and trembling effect. Or alternately, it's okay to admit that you just get paid by the post. Others have. No big deal. Have a nice day!


Sure. Yes I certainly can ignore your harping shrilly on one obscure article. Any reasonable person would do just that, when someone is trying to grab their attention with wild hysteria rants.

But since you are interested in 5 sigma events, perhaps you would be interested in more 5 sigma events. Turns out CRU temperatures are trimmed by convention when they exceed 5 sigma...Now are you reading a study based on the results of datasets with trimmed data series?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/05/analysis-cru-tosses-valid-5-sigma-climate-data/

Realistically, I don't have the impression that you have a training in science and the scientific method. It tends to make one very very humble about what conclusions can be drawn and with what data....

Sure. Yes I certainly can ignore your harping shrilly on one obscure article. Any reasonable person would do just that, when someone is trying to grab their attention with wild hysteria rants.

But since you are interested in 5 sigma events, perhaps you would be interested in more 5 sigma events. Turns out CRU temperatures are trimmed by convention when they exceed 5 sigma...Now are you reading a study based on the results of datasets with trimmed data series?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/05/analysis-cru-tosses-valid-5-sigma-climate-data/

Realistically, I don't have the impression that you have a training in science and the scientific method. It tends to make one very very humble about what conclusions can be drawn and with what data....

I am not sure what that picture is of, perhaps of an ice cap on land. The density of ice results in approximately 92% of it being under water.

The assertion that all of the world's ice will melt seems like fear mongering to me. 

The major point is the cost. Many people are concerned that even if climate change is real and should be paid some attention, is it really worth it? There is also the argument that climate change has always existed. The alarm springs up now because we are only getting to observe it properly. Even if we practice all these measures targeted towards containing climate change, how much of a difference can we make? Governments too are using this topic as a means of carting away with our money. The expenditure mostly does not measure up to the results. Though of course, a clean earth would be of great profit to us all.

It's because people exist that voted for trump, the entire population can't be logical we have to have some looneys out there to balance it out.

Of course climate change is real anyone that is even a little skeptical about should really go in for a mental evaluation.

With that said there are so many things that can be done today and right now that could offset the climate change it gets me so frustrated with all the corps and politicians just standing in the way being a bunch of fckin NIMBY's (not in my backyard) about anything that will help the planet.

Classical fear mongering, and not even supported by radical environmentalists.

The North Pole ice is floating, but Greenland is two miles of ice on top of land. Antartica is ice on top of land, with the arguable exception of the western peninsula. Obviously ice on land is not even influenced by warming or changing ocean currents.

Now for the meteorology. Temperatures on Earth go DOWN as you go UP in altitude. About 3C per 1000'. So if you go up 10000 feet, it's much, much colder. Now think about the effect of that in polar regions, where it's already very cold due to little sunlight.

Arguments that Greenland and Antarctica will melt are simply unscientific.

Now you've finally got it! Yes, the ice will all melt. No, I don't know when. No, nobody does. It could be in 100 years from global warming, it could be in millions of years with a repeat of the climate seen in the Eocene.



I don't "believe" in global warming anymore than I "believe" in gravity. I understand that global warming is happening because I understand the facts and data. Using language like "believe" is commonly used by the scientific illiterate to create the illusion of controversy where none exists.



Most signature campaigns don't count posts in Politics & Society, so this is just yet more incorrect nonsense.



Excluding results exceeding 5 standard deviations is a perfectly reasonable practice when looking at trends. 5 standard deviations is actually a very generous cut off - 3 standard deviations would be more than sufficient. Regardless, the CRUTEM data also exclude plenty of results that are above average temperature, for example Riyadh, Feb 2002 (5.5 SDs hotter than the mean), Barquisimeto, August 2008 (6.6 SDs hotter than the mean), Diego-Suarez, Nov 2013 (7.8 SDs hotter than the mean). In fact, since 1990, they have excluded approximately 6 times as many data points for being too hot than for being too cold. If you include all the outliers, the trend upwards is even steeper.

The mere fact that you would post some nonsense ramblings  written by a non scientist on his pseudoscientific blog that actually prove my point even more as if that is an appropriate rebuttal to a peer reviewed meta analysis is hilarious. It is clear that neither you nor the author understand the data.

It is also hilarious that you are quite happy to refer to scientific data and when you think the data support your position,* but equally happy to ignore them all when they contradict you.

*They don't.



Correct. Also irrelevant. 10% of the world's land surface area is covered in ice, approximately 15 million km². This is known as land ice. When it melts, its volume is completely added to the sea. As an aside, even sea ice will raise the water level a little when it melts as fresh water is less dense than the salt water.



This is the most ridiculous thing you have posted yet. We are quite literally observing Greenland and Antarctica melting before our eyes.

https://i.imgur.com/WoWdm6Z.png

https://i.imgur.com/8R5WkGL.png

Nonsense.
We're overdue for another ice age. That's inevitable, as it is caused by orbital perturbations. Do you have any clue as to how far south the ice sheets will extend?

Why not admit it? You posted something that wasn't true, no more or less.

Graphs won't help you.
Please, no ducking dodging or goal post shifting.
You're again saying things that are grossly inaccurate and misleading. You've failed in hyping alarmism by your claim that Greenland and Antarctica are going to melt, and you know it.

From Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

During the Last Glacial Maximum, much of the world was cold, dry, and inhospitable, with frequent storms and a dust-laden atmosphere. The dustiness of the atmosphere is a prominent feature in ice cores; dust levels were as much as 20 to 25 times greater than now.[4] This was probably due to a number of factors: reduced vegetation, stronger global winds, and less precipitation to clear dust from the atmosphere.[4] The massive sheets of ice locked away water, lowering the sea level, exposing continental shelves, joining land masses together, and creating extensive coastal plains.[5] During the last glacial maximum, 21,000 years ago, the sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today.[6]

Wrong. We are currently in an interglacial period of the Quaternary Ice Age.



Wrong again. Ice ages are caused by many separate factors, not just one. Also, the term you are looking for is Milankovitch cycles, not orbital perturbations.



What are you even talking about? "Graphs won't help you"? You realise the graphs are just representations of facts and evidence? Right? Honestly, this is beyond ridiculous.

Anyway, since in your world facts are less valid than your technique of just spouting whatever nonsense you make up, here are some photos instead. Can't wait to hear how somehow these aren't valid either.

https://www.demilked.com/magazine/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/global-warming-climate-change-photographic-proof-united-states-geological-survey-thumb640.jpg

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2015/10/thenandnowglaciers.jpg

http://www.earthintransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/muir-glacier-2.jpg

https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/archive/AOlOiPyQwdq23wXN5jDV_glaciers1.jpg



What has this got to do with anything? Or is your argument now "it can't possible be getting warmer, because once upon a time it was really cold"?


Honestly, I'm getting bored here. Your argument seems to have degenerated to "throw random somewhat scientific terms at the wall and see what sticks". And are you just ignoring that the one link you did provide actually hurt your case more than helped it? You don't even understand the terms you use or the data you are linking to. The facts on my side are overwhelming - if you have any actual facts/figures/evidence/data/proof to present for your side, then I'll happily discuss it. If, however, you are going to just keep spouting nonsense and made up assertions, then I'm wasting my time.

Most skeptical people to climate change are people aware of the real situation. I, for example, do not believe in climate change. I think it is a plan to stop the US from developing its industries. Our car industry will crash if we try to implement European agreements on climate change. I think it is a total hoax. Climate change is just like Nessie, the monster of the lockness. Some people believe in Nessie. We have never seen it. Some people believe in climate change. Have they ever seen it? The rise or fall of temperature is called season, not climate change. Too much politics in this topic.

You are wasting your time spamming with climate porn.

I'll stick with "orbital perturbations," of which Milankovitch cycles are a subcategory. Let's check our friend Wikipedia.

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

 The term is named for Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković. In the 1920s, he hypothesized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic patterns on Earth.
[/quote]


Since the Quaternary Ice Age is defined as a period when some ice sheets existed throughout, notably those of Antarctica, isn't this a bit in conflict with your prior claim that "All the ice is going to melt!" I think if you just answer "Sometime...." it is a refutation of any causative link between man's carbon emissions and the melting of all the ice.

For all practical purposes, we're in an Ice Age when half of North America is covered by glaciers. If you want to nit pick and shout about "Interglacial periods of the Quad..." go at it. If you want to state it as "we're overdue for the end of the current interglacial period" that's fine. Playing with the words does not change the facts.

The facts are that we are headed for a much colder global climate.

Here's your facts.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090806141512.htm

Long Debate Ended Over Cause, Demise Of Ice Ages? Research Into Earth's Wobble
Date:
August 7, 2009
Source:
Oregon State University
Summary:
Researchers have largely put to rest a long debate on the underlying mechanism that has caused periodic ice ages on Earth for the past 2.5 million years -- they are ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth's rotation and axis.

... the known wobbles in Earth's rotation caused global ice levels to reach their peak about 26,000 years ago, stabilize for 7,000 years and then begin melting 19,000 years ago, eventually bringing to an end the last ice age.

...The melting was first caused by more solar radiation, not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures, as some scientists have suggested in recent years.

....Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age – unless some other forces stop or slow it.

I have to admit I'm still on the fence of climate change. I don't think the tiny amount of pollution by humans really has an everlasting effect on our atmosphere.

If you have the opportunity to talk with real scientists and researchers in related subjects,  you will find a far different viewpoint than that of internet  opinionators.

The primary domain of anti-scientific and anti-logical attitudes and mindsets reaching the public today is "climate change."

Glad to see you've finally changed your mind, since the source you just used for your argument also says this:



You are now two out of two for trying to provide evidence and ending up strengthening my case and weakening your own. You apparently are just Googling for random things that you think support your case, which you don't even read before posting, let alone understand.

I'll say it again - if you have any actual facts/figures/evidence/data/proof to present for your side, then I'll happily discuss it. Continuing to post your unsupported and provably incorrect opinions is getting embarrassing for you.

Just to clarify there is nothing tiny about the amount of pollution humans are responsible for.

A glaring example would be "Great Pacific garbage patch" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch)

---

I'll admit I am significantly less active on the environmental front that I was even 5 years ago. Don't get me wrong I still actively do what I can to reduce my impact as it's something I find value in doing.

The reason I feel most people I will meet through my lifetime can easily dismiss climate change is due to our life expectancy. They are banking on the fact that they will not be here to deal with the negative outcomes. Though arguably the increase in unprecedented storm activity is being linked as an early indicator that things are changing.

You don't have "a case", except in your own delusional thinking, in which you are the Factboy, possessor of all correct facts, and others are either wrong or praise your keen insight.

This is another tired attempt to reframe an argument and misdirect. (e.g.. I'll say it again - if you have any actual facts/figures/evidence/data/proof to present for your side,...)

FROM: "All the ice will melt" and "An ice age is coming"

TO: the boring, trivial mantra of "Man's CO2 emissions will cause the planet to burn up!"

But I have news for you. Clark's comment about GGE is not inconsistent with his paper's thesis, methods or conclusions. It's not the subject of his investigation.

It's irrelevant to it, and you are just trying to shift the goal posts of the discussion.

What unprecedented storm activity? Climate is defined as weather over a minimum of three successive ten year periods. If you have seen some stormy weather that has pretty much zero relevance to climate averages.

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Until you post a single piece of evidence, I'm done wasting my time constantly refuting your made up drivel.

Now you are falsely attributing comments to me, which is obviously against the forum rules. "Baseless opinions and no facts" is what YOU SAID, not I.

Why would deceit further your cause?

It is the problem, not the solution.

After all, a proud dispenser of FACTS must be truthful, or he has no facts.

It may be because they do not care about the environment as much as those who are concerned and it may also be because they are not currently affected by it. People still go on with their day to day lives, just thinking about the present. News about climate change may have reached them, but I guess never acknowledged it. Maybe they’ll realize this when it’s too late. So for us who care, I suggest we do our part.

You have no facts.

I'm bringing this topic back to the topic. People need to see you get shutdown repetitively with scientific arguments.

You really seem to be a state sponsored troll at this point.

People are skeptical about climate change because it's something they can't see happening in real time. The same goes for things like evolution. Because you can't show them it actually happening via a video or in some other digestible format they often just discredit it or write it off as a conspiracy. With that being said, I don't deny that climate change is happening, but I'm not entirely convinced it's 100% due to man made issues either. Then again, I'm not a scientist.


Like this guy for a perfect example. A lot of people always look for the conspiracy and who it benefits, even without evidence themselves.

The problem is the non-scientists 'rebuking' the notion. The science community overwhelming believes one way.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Cook_et_al._%282016%29_Studies_consensus.jpg/1024px-Cook_et_al._%282016%29_Studies_consensus.jpg

Also:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg/512px-Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg.png

That's interesting. There sure are a lot of people with opinions. Very impressive.

Now if you would please present the empirical data showing that global warming is a result of anthropogenic climate change, as a direct result of human C02 output. Not theories. Not opinions. Not simulations. Not projections. Empirical data.

Go research each of the studies in that picture. Find the scientists that posted their research on climate change. Bam! There's your empirical data, or at least the methodologies on how the data was analyzed to get the information.

But nah, just gonna troll bitcointalk a bit more, aren't ya? Silly uneducated baboon. ;)

How about YOU go research it since YOU are making the claim, and the BURDEN OF PROOF is on YOU. Or, you know just pretend I am uneducated and play it off like I am just too dumb to look it up, not that you don't have any clue what you are even talking about. How do you expect to convince anyone of anything if you can't explain it yourself?

I presented proof, you refuse to accept it.

You're too dumb to understand the proof. But hey, no matter what evidence I present, you'll still stick your head in the sand like the buffoon you are. ;)

Tell me, what "proof" was that exactly? Please quote. I carefully reviewed all your posts and I saw no proof of anthropogenic climate change.

To stay on topic as a general rule with regards to any form of information or skepticism.... "fact" is something an majority have agreed upon and hence from that day they call it an fact.... we call the grass green because we reached an consensus on the usage and interpretation of both the words "grass" and the word "green". Coming back to your question of  "why"... it's simple.... It's harder to defend than to attack facts in general and especially on global warming where the data is interpretable in many ways to the highest bidder for a mouthpiece P.H.D. degree for both organisations/goverments/companies etc at both sides whether it's a bio-hippy or the oil-junky. Long story short....It's a fight between who is better in convincing and the "facts" are secondary as long the objective is reached...which is convince you of the existence or myth of global warming.

Because there are people that believes that whatever is going on in our environment right now is just a normal occurrence, not knowing that every year, the weather is getting worst. And then, it will be too late when they finally realized that they've been wrong all along and the planet is actually about to go down in flames.

Yes, the weather right now is totally normal.

It's not getting worse every year.

I understand there's considerable propaganda with every extreme weather even to shape public opinion, but try to get past that.

https://www.pri.org/categories/big-melt

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-10-22/alaskan-village-falling-sea-washington-looking-other-way


NPR tends to be pretty unbiased. I guess they're more "fake news". rofl.

Actually, at least in this case, they are not the presenter of fake news. Let's look at exactly what they say.

Of course, climate change is only adding to a problem that already existed in Shishmaref — it was always vulnerable to erosion, making it a risky place for a permanent settlement.

So why was it there to begin with?

It’s a question Kelly Eningowuk, who heads the Anchorage-based Inuit Circumpolar Council in Alaska, hears a lot.

“I've heard something to the effect of, ‘These dumb Eskimos, why did they build their community on a barrier island?’” Eningowuk says. “The fact of the matter is, because [that’s where] the church and the Bureau of Indian Affairs school was built.”

The presenter of fake news is YOU, linking to a news event and imputing content to it that the link does not have. The article clearly says that without the Western influence, without our putting facilities there that should not have been there, the Inuits would not have a settlement there. They were NOMADIC. I'd support our paying to relocate them but not on some fake and rigged argument about climate change. Barrier islands ERODE. Duh...

Please stop the fake news.

News reporters report a guy's story. Overall, they're reporting on the local, normally uneducated, villages. By uneducated, they're just cultural breeding grounds, really. Give the story a watch man, instead of just looking for troll points.

It's an interesting story of these entire remote villages dealing with climate change. They should be moving, they should be concerned, but they're just staying put, because culture. The ones that do want to move, can't because funding.


However, if you think NPR presents 'fake news', that's your prerogative. They're a fair and unbiased* source of information.

* They normally report any connections they have to the stories.

** NPR's funding: https://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2017/National_Public_Radio_Consolidate_Financial_Statements_D1617_FINAL.pdf

Now you are plain lying, misrepresenting what I said directly. Here is your misrepresentation of my comments.

I said this "Actually, at least in this case, they are not the presenter of fake news."

To which you delete my comments and impute the opposite.

However, if you think NPR presents 'fake news', that's your prerogative. They're a fair and unbiased* source of information.

Here is exactly what I then said, which you deleted in order to present that misinformation.

The presenter of fake news is YOU, linking to a news event and imputing content to it that the link does not have. The article clearly says that without the Western influence, without our putting facilities there that should not have been there, the Inuits would not have a settlement there. They were NOMADIC. I'd support our paying to relocate them but not on some fake and rigged argument about climate change. Barrier islands ERODE. Duh...

Please stop the fake news.

The problem isn't climate change. If it stops raining in the jungle for 10 minutes, the climate has changed. Many countries have seasons... climate change. The problem has to do with the way climate change is described by some people.

In a different post and thread about global warming, I said that global cooling has been in effect since about the year 2000. I misspoke. What is happening is that the rate of global warming is slowing down. However, we might be to the point of global cooling taking over, and I just haven't read about it, yet.

8)

Rather than respond bluefirecorp_ just continues to move on, not bothering to support his premise with proof. It is much easier to sell bullshit when you stay away from facts and debate stuff that has no demonstrable direct causal connection.

Stop running away and making excuses.
QUOTE YOUR EMPIRICAL DATA SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

Well, put it this way: people deny or hate anything they don't understand and know nothing about. Worst is misinformation. These days it's so easy to get information from everyone and everywhere, and most of them are false. If they don't believe in climate change, let them believe otherwise. Someday, when the climate gets worst, to the point where it will affect our civilization, they will finally understand and believe it's real after all. Just you wait and see.

Why would anyone think that changes in climate (climate change) isn't happening or hasn't happened? It is all around us?

The thing that is misleading is the way some people have made the term "climate change" to mean something that they expressly want us to believe, when there isn't any proof for it.

Consider this. Scientists claim that evolution happened over millions of years, and that humans have been around for at least 100,000 years. Did climate change wipe out the human race over that time? No! Did each of those people die? Yes!

Go look at the cemeteries and see if people die. Go find someone who is over 200 years old so that we can see that maybe people don't die after all.

You're gonna die! With or without climate change, you're gonna die.

Climate change is a bunch-of-lies program some elite have set in place to play on your fears in ways so that they can gain control over you and your money.

8)

There is some evidence that we were almost wiped out about 70,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#Genetic_bottleneck_theory

Today, the problem is several magnitudes larger but we have the technology to muddle through and continue to destroy our habitat.

Ignorance is bliss.  You can deny it, but it will not change the fact that each year young people get their driver's licenses and buy new homes, built on farmlands.  

As more people join the pollution train than leave it, you have a positive feedback loop that nobody is talking about.

They'll deny it then even. Blame it on the wraith of God or some other nonsense. People absolutely refuse to accept reality.

I do agree with the sentiment that there's not really much reason to argue with them. They're not looking to change their opinion.

--

Climate getting to that point won't really be good for anyone. Think of the animals. Think of the children.

--

We needed radical, dramatic change globally years ago. We've just entered the start of the loop. Hopefully, we'll be able to make a technological break through to solve the problem globally. Awareness simply won't work. It seems there's a loud bunch of people that are science-denying idiots. It's the same shit as anti-vaxers, flat-earthers, moon-conspiracist, etc.

To be honest, other than an amazing megastructure that can offset our carbon emissions, I don't see the science making way for a lot of the active individuals here in politics and society, regardless of how much evidence is presented.

Since you have opted to ignore me since you have realized you are incapable of debating me logically, I have decided I will simply just start replying to your other comments :)

I haven't seen anyone here bring God into this except for you, just now. This is just more character assassination having nothing to do with the facts. "Radical" change huh? Such as what? Oh please do tell me your plans to fix this problem you think humans are causing.

You don't see the science making way.... WAT? WTF does that even mean. Also if you want to convince people, perhaps post some actual empirical data instead of projections, theories, and simulations and pretending they are facts.

Greed, lack of information, misinformation, lack of education, ignorance, Stupidity, and populism. That pretty much sums it up.

Unfortunately it's true. Our society isn`t ripe yet to realize the danger of global warming and to start doing something. But I'm afraid when everyone realizes it, it will be too late.

1. Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. In many cases, a synthesis of evidence and agreement supports an
assignment of confidence. The summary terms for evidence are: limited, medium or robust. For agreement, they are low, medium or high. A level of
confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. The following
terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%,
likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely
likely 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%, extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.
Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely. See for more details: Mastrandrea, M.D., C.B. Field, T.F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K.L. Ebi, D.J. Frame,
H. Held, E. Kriegler, K.J. Mach, P.R. Matschoss, G.-K. Plattner, G.W. Yohe and F.W. Zwiers, 2010: Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 4 pp.





---
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

But the sock puppets support the theory too!

Look at the consensus!

Gee, it is likely they like to make lots of projections. It almost seems like all of your "facts" are really just theories, projections, and simulations. Lets pretend for the sake of argument that these studies even represented facts. Now lets look at how many times the IPCC has been exposed for fraud and manipulating data to get desired results.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/urban_heat_island_could_it_account_for_most_warming_attributed_to_agw/
https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Climategate
https://www.forbes.com/sites/workday/2018/10/25/a-top-priority-for-todays-cfo-having-confidence-in-your-data/


Long story short, the IPCC has been shown to not take into account urban heat islands when placing temperature monitoring stations leading so skewed (higher) measurements. In addition their models are based off of the data presented by Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been proven to have manipulated the past data to make it appear lower than it should have to give the appearance of a rise in temperature. Your supposed facts here have already been shredded, you just refuse to take our head out of the sand and review it, because if it disagrees with you, it must be made by "science denying idiots".

The IPCC also ignored solar influences on climate. Which is really pretty stupid if you think about it.

It'a pretty funny that people link "conservipedia" as scientific evidence.

Holy shit, might as well just post an entire "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" as your argument.

Hey, guys, YOU'RE ALL WRONG BECAUSE *PEDIA says so - idiots from the right.


They don't even argue the merits of the science. They literally just spread misinformation and bullshit without actually reading or understanding the evidence.

People need to start paying attention to the sides. The side offering science evidence vs the side offering feelings.

I find it hilarious you lecture me about arguing the merits of science when literally all you just did was attack the source, without addressing a single one of its refutations, or my own for that matter. I explained my position, refuting yours, using simple language and provided sources to back it up. Now you try.

Anybody who has enough time on his hands to talk about climate change, is living in luxury. Many people are living hand-to-mouth, working 3 jobs to support a family, and their spouse is working, as well. Climate change doesn't matter to them as much as preparing for winter snows.

Climate change doesn't mean anything at all except to those who have leisure time to sit around and ponder it... the elite, for making and advertising all kinds of fear-mongering ideas about it... and the beer-sucking, couch-potatoes who have time to sit around and listen to the elite.

8)

When we talk about some people, I think Donald Trump is one of them. He is very much skeptical about climate change.

Sure.

It's hard to not be skeptical when you see politicians wanting to take your money to roll back the oceans.

I think that most people do not even think about such global problems. People are more interested in their personal minor problems than global and common ones. Collective responsibility is not peculiar to a person. It turns out everyone is guilty and no one personally. Therefore, people are not very worried about such problems.

How can people be skeptical of climate change   we have summer winter climate change in action ..

Something you all should know about climate change ..

Climate change is fresh air tax  you do all know this don't you ?  I will explain my case..

We are getting told that bad gases are heating the earth up and we need to tax this bad gas because of climate change it's heating the earth up ..

Ok if the bad gas is heating the earth up who pays for this tax   the business owners ? OR will it get passed on to your average joe meaning cost will go up because of bad gas
that heats the earth up and now poor mary will need more money to live?..

Now about this bad gas tax that heats the earth up  say you clean the gas to good gas  what will happen to the heat source REMEMBER you took the bad gas out what about the heat source ?..

If i light 1 fire in a 100 sq ft  it will be warm  if i light 30 fires in 100 sq ft you will boil  NOW what about all the heat sources how do you know that's the cause of the earth warming up so no matter even if you clean the bad gases what about the heat source and don't forget heat travels up  SO the more people want to live like the west the more heat sources from cars homes factories   SO is it the bad gas OR the heat source all over the planet and heat rises ..

Now we are getting TRICKED into paying for air pollution when is it the pollution or the heat source that heats the earth up?..

The more homes built and factories the more heat sources and heat rises up ..But we will be paying taxes for air pollution because that's the cause of climate change when it might not even be that it could be the heat source AND what i mean by this is after years and years of paying taxes for pollution will we end up finding out it's not the pollution it was the heat source  remember heat rises ..

And how many want to live the modern way?  more heat sources rising heat all over the globe  and we get told to pay for bad gases when it might not even be because of the gas  And it might not be even for the heat source just good old earth moving around ..

Now who benefits from carbon tax?  Instead of making a doomsday thing up why not just say greedy businesses your getting taxed instead of blaming climate for collecting
more taxes?..  Just say we are taxing you because we need this because you make enough greedy bunch of peoples..

I wonder who gets kickbacks for the climate taxes the POLITICIANS?  more taxes for them to feed their families ..

Remember Diesel more healthy than petrol so you would go out and buy a Diesel   now Diesel is bad for you   all so you would buy a Diesel   so i wonder did VW give politicians kickbacks for this lie   well how many did they sell ;)..Just like carbon tax ..

Now how do we stop the heat source?  well we can't  so forget your tax just stop the bad gases without the tax thanks..

Because we might be paying for nothing when all along it's the heat source and not the carbon gases ..

Or maybe because people don`t know about it?
For example, I haven’t heard for the last time that the media talk about it.
Probably everyone has ever heard this word combination, but few people understand well what it is.
I think the media should talk more about this, give concrete facts, studies, forecasts of scientists, etc. It is necessary for people to understand that this is a real problem and a threat to humanity.
But unfortunately, the media almost don`t engage in such an important matter.
Therefore, people don`t understand.

I think you mean those people who believe that HIV doesn't exist, you will have horns and tail from genetically modified products, and no need for vaccination.
Most people aren't very smart. Without having an opinion and not understanding the essence of the issue, they're happy to relay other people's thoughts that aren't always adequate.
When you start arguing with them suddenly it turns out that your a rapist from frozen wasteland.

It always amazes me how accurately the descriptions that leftists try to use to demonize people usually quite accurately describe their own behavior.

Perhaps present some empirical data to support your argument. Character attacks aren't going to do anything but reassure existing true believers, and at most make less people have a debate openly while they question your conclusions privately.

BTW... Obvious sock puppet is obvious.

So sock puppet or loon? I'm confused

There's nothing wrong and everything right about being skeptical about things people try to scare you into doing, believing, and paying for based on their assertion that there's "scientific proof of climate change."

That's a separate issue from how, why and what they are trying to extort from you.

This vid from the spring was kind of funny and relevant to this topic.

Joe Rogan made Candace Owens look like an idiot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lD29jqH078

I love how he keeps hammering away and won't let her whataboutism move the questions off track.

I love how he keeps asking her why do you believe when you don't know, and she just answers with nonsensical bullshit!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lD29jqH078

A certain party thrives off nonsensical bullshit if you haven't noticed.

I'm pretty sure people who support her totally agree with her arguments even though they're absolutely nonsensical.

Some believe that the changes are cyclical and that one point nature will find a way to get itself back to normal.
But most specialists say that the results will be catastrophic should the powers that be not intervene.
I think so as well. But for them to intervene would mean to spend a lot of money and disrupt their current money making schemes.

It's a scientific fact that the overall temperature is rising. The problem most people have with this theory, is that the media is claiming it's due to human influences that the worlds temperature is rising. Which can be disproven very easily. Humans have a very, very minor effect on climate change. The worlds temperature has gone up and down over the last thousands and thousands of years. For example : 300 years ago it was almost 1 C° higher than it is now.
So that's my problem with the theory. Although you simply can't deny that climate change isn't happening.

Here's a nice timeline. It's pretty smooth, even though there's changes greater than 1C. Notice the extreme curve in recent history?

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png

Normally non-man made climate change takes place over tens of thousands of years, not hundreds.

Not in the case of the Little Ice Age, or the Medieval Warm Period. Not in the case of many other natural phenomena. Guess you are just wrong on that.

GIB ME DA PROOF BOIIIII!!


No source = fake news!~!!!!


inb4 some alt-right conspiracy bullshit where they also proclaim the earth is flat on the same site.

You talk and act childish, you want to get responses?

Oh, I was just summarizing your argument methodology.

I suppose I should put quote around it otherwise it could be considered plagiarism :)

But the fact that you couldn't provide proof means you've conceded on your point; good debate my fellow. Nice to own you yet again.

Many people, specially big corporations, just because of business.
If you're running a company that has a direct influence over climate change, its normal and logic that you will say that climate change is not something real.

As to the masses, well. It's been said above, some people still think that the world is flat. That is pretty much of a good background on what's the current state of society.

They discovered that the world is round hundreds of years ago, but stubborn minds are not something that scarce.

Forgive me if I'm feeling lazy, but just finally got indoors and it's colder than a witch's tit out there, and the wind is howling, probably approaching the katabatibc winds of Antarctica. Well, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration. Still, I hope they've got an ample supply of fossil fuels down there.

So my question is, did those clowns at the IPCC ever create a chapter in their magic holy book on solar influences? Last I heard they had not understood the CERN Cloud experiments and their impact.

I think people don't really understand the whole concept of climate change. At first it was about global warming, it didn't work, people didn't understood what that is really about. Then, it was about climate change, not many know what that is also. Something more convincing should be promoted to people in order to make them believe that what the environment suffers from mankind mass destruction is going to affect themselves, their children and the whole world. The problem here is: what about the ones saying: i don't care. we will die anyway. How do we convince those? Maybe with aggressive advertising or real situations.
I saw today a post on Facebook with a polar bear crawling, very skinny, starving, etc. My heart melted. But for those that don't care, how do we make them more emphatic to this matter?

I'm feeling it on my own skin, it's not a matter of belief   >:( it's november but it feels like summer

It seems to me that you, like many other who support the anthropogenic global warming theory tend to think more with your emotions than with your logic. Just wanting good things does not guarantee you your path will achieve it. That is what logic is for.

Uh oh....check this out!

https://www.iceagenow.info/lack-of-sunspots-to-bring-record-cold-warns-nasa-scientist/

Lack of sunspots to bring record cold, warns NASA scientist

“The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age,” wrote Dr Tony Phillips just six weeks ago, on 27 Sep 2018.

Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018 and Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding, says Phillips, editor of spaceweather.com.

Data from NASA’s TIMED satellite show that the thermosphere (the uppermost layer of air around our planet) is cooling and shrinking, literally decreasing the radius of the atmosphere.

To help track the latest developments, Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center and his colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index.”

The Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI) tells how much heat nitric oxide (NO) molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (meaning “Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (meaning “Cold”).

“Right now, it is very low indeed … 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle,” says Mlynczak

People are going to be skeptical about anything that requires understanding of multiple scientific principles at work in a dynamic system with many variables.  Traditionally, the uneducated have just called this type of thing "god".  There is no point in debating climate change with people who don't understand the greenhouse effect, carbon cycle, geological time, combustion, ocean currents, the effect of salinity on density, or the difference between weather and climate. 

We have people who think the whole earth was once flooded, people who think it is 5000 years old, people who think it is FLAT.  Imagine trying to get those people to understand this when they don't know the basics. 

Could you possibly get any further up your own ass? I am here, I am willing to debate you. So far I have seen ZERO reliable evidence to support the anthropogenic climate change model. Change my mind. Use facts and sourced references.

Everything you need is in here
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
There are tabs for evidence, causes, effects, vital signs, scientific articles, graphics and multimedia, etc.

Seems like it would be smart if all climate data was publicly available on a blockchain that was immutable over the long term.

Oh, wait.

That wouldn't work because they are continually changing the numbers and facts.

The Climate Adjustment Bureau....

That is just the nature of Science.  New, more accurate data comes in all the time.  Your desire for "proof" of static facts that never change explains your anti-science positions. 

You do not know what you are talking about.

Scientific data must be publicly available, both the raw and adjusted data. The formulas used for adjustments must be available

Then a conclusion made by a scientist can be independently validated.

If the data and methods are secret, this cannot be done.

It is all available on the homepage of the site I linked. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/
If you click that link and click on any of the datasets, there is a big "GET DATA" link right below the graph that takes you to a txt file of the raw data. 

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

I mean, it's not even a government entity that's reporting climate change. It's a bunch of independent, non-governmental scientists that are reporting it.

The government just follows up on their studies to see if they're legit or not. Honestly, an overwhelming majority of scientists (and data) points towards man-made climate change.

And who funds the organizations that pay them?

Private citizens, normally through tuitions. Sometimes industry. Sometimes government. Funding from all the different sources, but yet it's a massive conspiracy somehow?

This is the same shitty logic used by flat earthers and moon-landing deniers.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

So, for the sake of argument, even assuming humans are causing it... what are the costs of reducing C02 output? People like to pretend "oh we might as well be safe rather than sorry! Why not? We have nothing to lose!"

Actually we have plenty to lose. Direct loss of life and reduction in quality of life for millions. Economic collapse is potentially another outcome. All for the "Well maybe we MIGHT slow down global warming." This is the main sticking point here. Implementing Co2 reduction as planned will have EXTREME COSTS.

In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.

    Fossil fuel are not in unlimited supply here on Earth. Eventually, the cost to mine it will become more to more. Market forces are eventually going to force us to find more efficient and alternate forms of energy. We might as well start now rather than later. We already have hydroelectric plants for electricity and Hybrid cars are already becoming cheaper. If you prefer, not expending these "extreme costs" now will just translate to the costs having to be expended in the future. I really doubt that we are going to see an unbearable reduction in the quality of life for millions. From where I live, almost everyone is driving around in a huge SUV or monster truck. Is driving a compact car and/or hybrid car instead really that much of a tragic loss of the quality of life?  :D

Edit: TLDR? to be a bit trite, "A stitch, in time, saves nine."

Just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it hasn't been presented thoroughly throughout this thread.

Raw data has been presented after you discarded the information compiled by the data.

The data has been sourced from multiple different independent agencies, and institutions.

I don't think there's anything in this world that'll ever convince you of man made climate change.

Pretty much, all climate change deniers have this issue; they refuse to accept the science without justifiable cause or reason.

There is a big difference between natural market forces and government mandated restriction. I have no problem with THE MARKET deciding oil is not worth it any more, but we aren't there yet. Also they have predicted peak oil how many times by now? No it is not unlimited, but there will be availability for the foreseeable future in spite of the naysayers.

We use electricity for running hospitals, infrastructure for food and water, etc. If these global warming standards are implemented there WILL be energy shortages, brown outs, and black outs. Additionally developing nations will continue to be held down by these regulations the industrialized world MIGHT be able to cope with, while they will not.

You are claiming that these regulations are equivalent to everyone driving around hybrid cars. Frankly that is a gross oversimplification bordering on being disingenuous. These regulations will have REAL COSTS.

I'm well aware of where the data sets are maintained. Here is an explanation of the problem.

Neither I or anyone else should be expected to accept data unless the raw data is available and can be validated, and the adjustments explained which take it to the "adjusted value."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/

Separately, as an example of the problem, here is a recent case where a warming study showed large amounts of heat in the oceans that had previously not been known. Big headlines, everyone saw them. And independent researcher found a problem with their math and notified them. They fixed it and announced their errors.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/07/global-warming-study-oceans-error/

That's the way it SHOULD work. But there are many cases with climate research where it does not...

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

   Well, I think the thrust in thinking of many conservative people is it is just another way for the government to increase their revenues through taxes and penalties. Then that money is wasted in the inefficient bureaucracy of the federal government.  Furthermore, when deciding what to do with the extra revenue, we can expect lots of pork to crop up.

What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder?

I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc.

The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit?

Its actually quite the opposite.  All of the CO2 reduction solutions would make the world a better place.  Lets say climate change didn't exist.  The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems, provide energy independence, make energy available in places that do not have access to infrastructure like roads for tankers and power plants.   (solar panels and wind turbines), no more reliance on fuel prices. 

Big advantages in human health as DALYs caused by air pollution would be mostly eliminated.  Cities would be more livable which would encourage more walking and hanging out in green spaces (better quality of life from time spent in green spaces).

The increase in green spaces and decrease in deforestation would reduce ecological harm. 

Cutting back on livestock production would force people to eat a healthier diet absent of red meat.  You would see heart disease risk diminish. 

Public transportation and mass transit availability would increase access and economic opportunities bringing people and ideas closer together.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg

Colorado is definitely cashing in on pot revenues.  :)  Also the government is "Satan." Every time that I have to go visit the DMV, I am reminded of this. Thank goodness that I can deal with most government business over the mail or internet these days.

No, that's ridiculous.

First of all, your mistake is this claim. Note the bolded word.

All of the CO2 ....

It should be obvious there have been some really, really bad ideas floated.

You want examples or would you like to revise your claim?

Remind me where I used the word government anywhere in my statement.

Who makes the regulations? Yeah.. Government / company / xxxx. It doesn't matter, my point is that it's not a good enough argument. A lot of different people/companies/governments can profit from a lot of different things at any given time. Saying they would or are profiting from it doesn't mean it's a hoax.

Then you know that science is not science unless it can be independently verified and validated, and you know that data sets must be freely available, both the raw and the final sets, for that to be possible.


About half of the temperature sensors now used are located at airports.

See any problem with that?

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/

Most scientists say that climate change is real, I really don't see why they would lie, not to say that we should just believe them but still. I don't know I don't really trust those conspiracy theory websites too much.

Nobody needs to trust conspiracy blah blah blah, and nobody needs to trust things scientists or politicians say. Science is PROVABLE, or it is not science. There's almost no room for belief.

The very essence of science is repeatability. The data problems with HADCRUT and the other indices of temperature are well known.

I passed a temperature sensor today, maybe 50-75 feet away. Guess where that was? AT AN AIRPORT!!!!

You know those don't read the same as sensors did in 1910 or 1935.

Skepticism is well needed as far as "climate science." When people like you suppress skepticism with derisive statements associating it with conspiracy, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorist etc etc etc you are negating the very nature of scientific inquiry.

The point was that I never made the argument "governments would profit", you did. I specifically cited financial sectors and large corporate entities who would greatly benefit from this legislation while smaller companies and individuals will be unable to cope. Now if you are denying corporations would manipulate government for profit then I have a special jar of magic piss to sell you, its delicious you'll love it.

What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?

It's not an argument, that's what I'm saying. That's not proof that climate change is a hoax. Just because someone can benefit from it somewhere. Flat earthers also think governments benefit from hiding the truth from us, should I believe them as well?

Great, we are agreement because I never even made that argument. Also I never claimed it was proof, you asked for motives so I provided them. The burden of proof is not on me to prove anthropogenic climate change is not real, it is on the supporters of the theory to prove it is real. So far none of the evidence presented that I have seen is legitimate or reliable as it all depends on either projections, estimates, or computer simulations, not empirical data. Really? You are going to pull out flat Earthers... common, that is chicken shit guilt via association tactics, and it is not even associated. You can do better than that bald faced slander.

I answered your questions with a re-explanation of the nature of scientific inquiry.

Now what? Change the subject? What are you trying to get to exactly?

Let me say my opinion one more time and see if it sinks in.

Because of the very intensity with which people are told to believe in climate change, one should question all the more the actual science, and insist on quality science.

If you don't, you will not get quality. Ever. And yes, right now, many of the studies are poor quality and will not stand up to a rigorous examination.

What questions, I only asked one. I don't see why most scientists would lie about it, period. If you want to discuss what you said:

However I did find this: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207

What about it? This article simply discusses the issues in moving from temperature measurements by ship engine cooling water to the bouys.

''These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.''

''Ocean temperature is related to ocean heat content, an important topic in the debate over global warming.''

https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/


Next.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.505aaa5aeac9

Next.

They admitted to the errors and: ''is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it hasn’t changed much despite the errors.''

Even if it's not more than what they previously thought, it still shows, along all the other studies, that oceans are still absorving more and more heat.

All that I know of.  I would love to hear the examples and can't imagine they are anything being seriously considered and not just "floated".

Even if that were true, which is under dispute, this does nothing to support the theory HUMANS are the cause.

Forced population reduction.

Storing CO2 in underground caverns under huge pressures.

Painting roads and rooftops white.

''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.

Let's start off by reducing the population that denies climate change.

Ahahaha, then the rest of us can actually take care of the problem without morons like him holding the rest of society back.

You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me.

"ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I?

I'm not the one who said that btw. Your argument is trash, change the all to most then? Does it work now? Nutjob

No, of course it does not work. Neither is my argument trash. You want to support the "ALL", how many more examples of nut job radical environmentalists do you want?

The Atlantic isn't exactly a trash publication.

....Hillary Clinton in 2009, when as Secretary of State she acknowledged the overpopulation issue during a discussion with Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh. Clinton praised another panelist for noting "that it's rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning."

"And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways," Clinton added.

Right-wing critics pounced, with the Alex Jones-run Info Wars calling her comments "Malthusian."


https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/the-climate-change-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/

Your problem, not mine. Obviously you need to correct the position or concede your position was wrong. "Most" is also ridiculous. Think about it, that implies this, directly:

"Most proposed solutions to global warming should be implemented as public policy."

That's what you really want to say?

It's ridiculous. First you start by praising science, and I remind you of the scientific methods. Then you praise "ALL SOLUTIONS," many of which were totally idiotic. Then you go to "Most solutions," which shows zero critical thinking.

You don't think that perhaps careful engineering studies would be useful, would you? Again, the need for critical thinking and skeptical viewpoints is required.

So you don't think getting rid of CO2 is good? The original point was: ''Lets say climate change didn't exist.  The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems'' I didn't say that but I understood it, you obviously did not.

The point was that the steps taken to solve climate change are beneficial nonetheless, so why would the ''fake it''?

All right, let's go back to that assertion. I understood it and rejected it.

Let's break this down into two pieces, and handle the "why" first. This is a logical fallacy, as it creates a choice between "the moral and ethical" and "the corrupt and lying." (or whatever)

That's not hardly ever all there is as to the range of motivations for individuals let alone groups.
Basically it's lying by presenting two false choices. It's no more authentic than your using arguments of ridicule, or implying that someone that doesn't agree with you is a conspiracy wacko.

Secondly let's look at "steps taken to solve climate change."

Proposed steps singly or jointly have not been shown to have any more than a tiny effect on Co2 concentration.

Thirdly let's consider "create sustainable, renewable energy systems."

Many of these are over promised, overly expensive, underperforming junk.

"Fourth let's look at "getting rid of CO2 is good."

More logical fallacies. Corrected, the assertion would be "A 1% reduction in human CO2 emissions has XYZ value." No it is not a priori good to "get rid of CO2." CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the earth and ocean.

     I'll have to agree. Plant life needs CO2 in order to survive. The goal is to get the amount of CO2 at some kind of equilibrium rather than eliminate it completely.

Scientists predict 'mini ice age' could hit UK by 2030






Looks like we should prepare for an ice age.


8)

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/science/when-the-scientific-consensus-is-corrected-by-a-skeptic/

I dont understand getting caught up on how temperature data has been presented.  Do you disagree that higher concentration of CO2 leads to increased temperatures?  We know pretty precisely how much CO2 we are releasing because its basic chemistry from the mass of carbon fuel we burn. 

Yeah why get caught up in the science part right? None of your points provide any evidence of anthropogenic climate change, even if they were fact.

In the presentation of temperature data, and in the near term likely effects of global warming, there has been massive lying. That's the only way to put it.

There has been some reasonable statements and cautions about possible dangers, that is mostly seen from scientists and engineers. From lay people and environmentalists, there has been massive exaggerations and outright lying.

Including on this forum. Who is "caught up in how temperature data is presented" is those doing the lying, not I. For example, people that try to cry hysterically that Greenland and Antarctica will melt, blah-blah-blah.

I'm just trying to put myself in your shoes to better understand your line of thinking. 

Lets say there rampant lying about temperatures.  I don't understand how that changes the big picture unless you throw out all of the basic concepts like

-combustion produces carbon dioxide which is released into the atmosphere
-the amount of carbon dioxide emissions can be estimated based on fuel burned
-carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it traps infrared radiation)
-deforestation decreases carbon dioxide consumption

In theory, doing all of those things should warm the planet, melt ice, acidify the oceans, and change climate.  Without any data on temperature, one should still be able to acknowledge the effects these activities cause.  Humans lying can't change the processes or the qualitative evidence we have that they are occurring. 

The temperature thing is really complicated though, because the warming sets off a series of events that compensate for warming.  When you melt ice, heat is absorbed but temperature does not rise because all of the energy goes into phase change.  Also, water has a very high heat capacity. 

When ocean currents change due to changing ocean salinity, some places that rely on warm water currents become much colder.  This is why we say climate change and not just warming but also negates some of the warming once you factor it into global averages. 

Its as if you think the totality of climate change evidence is based on temperature data.

You can do all the mental gymnastics you like, but this doesn't make your dogma any more based in fact. You have no hard evidence of anthropogenic climate change. All you have are theories, estimates, and simulations.

Is there evidence the Earths climate is changing? Sure, some of it seems reliable. The problem is with science you have to eliminate as many variables as possible in order to create a control. There is no control to compare to here. You have no way of proving your theory when there is far more evidence this is a result of sun cycles than human activity.

There isn't any evidence that it is more a result of sun cycles though.  The problem is that you are looking for reasons (that have all been dubunked) to deny climate change instead of just looking at all of the evidence.  We don't want climate change to be real but you want it to not be real and then reach for evidence against it.  there is a difference in motives here and that difference puts you at odds with science because you are cherrypicking evidence that you think supports what you want to be true.  

scientific theories don't need to be proven correct.  theories only exist because the body of evidence suggests they are true.

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png

https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_Attribution_1024_med.jpg

So now it's clear you don't know what you are talking about. That being the case, please stop trying to push your own ignorance on others. Here is one example of effects of solar and space weather on climate. This is CERN and the CLOUD experiment, pretty darn reputable.

https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth’s mean temperature is predicted to rise by between 1.5 – 4.5 °C for a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is expected by around 2050. One of the main reasons for this large uncertainty, which makes it difficult for society to know how best to act against climate change, is a poor understanding of aerosol particles in the atmosphere and their effects on clouds.

...The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles ...

So since you know so much, which is it? 1.5C or 4.5C?

Hint: There's only one right answer, anything else is lying.

I couldn't agree more CO2 is essential for life—animals exhale it, plants sequester it. It exists in Earth's atmosphere in comparably small concentrations, but is vital for sustaining life. Since the Industrial Revolution, energy-driven consumption of fossil fuels has led to a rapid increase in CO2 emissions, disrupting the global carbon cycle and leading to a planetary warming impact. The issues arise when there is excessive amount of CO2.

But we haven't come close to excessive amounts of CO2. Excessive amounts would be when there is more than enough to:
Warm and melt the poles;
Make Siberia, Northern Canada, and Antarctica habitable;
Put enough moisture into the atmosphere (via heat) to water the Sahara;
Make atmospheric water to be enough to block bad cosmic radiation;
Make atmospheric water enough so that the cosmic radiation that gets through turns the water into H2O2 so that multitudes of deadly diseases are killed off by peroxide bleaching;
Etc.

All this is why the one-worlders are making CO2 look bad. If there were more CO2 in the atmosphere, all of the above would happen, populations would explode, the one-worlders would lose control, we wouldn't need a medical, and people could become free, healthier, and happy.

8)

people who are skeptical about global warming because the impact cannot be felt directly, maybe the impact can be felt after several years, they also assume that global warming is only an issue that does not need to be considered, and warming gloabal can be overcome by scientists

It's just not something a regular person can claim to understand. Nor can we directly experience it's impact. I don't know much about gravity but I sure know it's working every single day. I don't know much about medicine but I know enough people helped by it. Climate change is too abstract to have an opinion on.

I find that every few years the secular world comes up with an end times prophecy. Nowadays climate change gave way to Artificial Intelligence taking over the world and stealing all our jobs. I give it as much credence as I do to people on the right freaking out over trans people signifying the end of the West. 10% truth, 90% BS.

But they do. Go back through this very thread, you will see dozens of people wailing about how hot it is and that it's climate change, and carbon emissions was obviously the reason....

Oh, wait...that was in the summer....


Amusing, isn't it?

The concept of something being too abstract to have an opinion on I'm going to have to mull over. Offhand I believe the abstractness INVALIDATES statements of opinion.

Do you have an OPINION on p versus np?

Oh I see, so the idea that the sun heats the Earth has been debunked now has it? Do you even bother reading what you write? No, YOU are the one claiming anthropogenic climate change is a thing, the burden of proof is ON YOU. You keep talking about all this "proof" and "evidence" as if it is just an accepted fact. That's not how science or debate work. What am I cherry picking here? Now you are just throwing names of fallacies at me and using them as a cudgel. That doesn't even make sense. I swear, if you really are a teacher your students should start a class action lawsuit for defrauding them of their tuition.

I am not the one who introduced the idea of anthropogenic climate change.    The entire community of atmospheric scientists did that.    You have a strange way of taking widely accepted scientific ideas, and saying they are coming from me and my bias. The burden of proof is not on the person who subscribes to the consensus of research on the topic.  The burden of proof is obviously on the person who goes against almost the entirety of the scientific community.

Your claim is not that the sun heats the Earth.  Your claim is that the INCREASE in temperature is due to the sun.  Those are two very different claims.  Everyone knows the first, and the scientific consensus is that no more than 40% of the warming in the past 100 years and no more than 20% of the warming in the last 50 years is due to the sun.  

I am not being funny but I really have to ask, do the two graphs from my last post even load in your browser?

Yeah, we all know you didn't create the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Yet here you are arguing that it is legitimate. You know what that means? The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate empirical data to support the conclusion YOU SUPPORT.

"The burden of proof is not on the person who subscribes to the consensus of research on the topic."

This is quite a telling statement, thank you. This is what is known as an appeal to authority or and appeal to popularity. It is a logical fallacy. One that clearly demonstrates you think science comes from consensus. You skipped a step. The part with the empirical data. Now if it is just such solid science, why don't you present it so we can address it? Of course you can't so you need to create some kind of lame attempt at manipulation via the common need for humans to be accepted. Everyone knows do they? EVERYONE? Quite a bold claim.

And yes your meaningless unsourced pictures loaded.

Actually, no it was a rather small group that did that.

Like Hansen doing a Senate presentation on the subject in 1988, having first rigged the building air conditioners to not work. Then your friend Al Gore started his clown act.

I'm sure you saw my earlier quote but let me repeat it.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth’s mean temperature is predicted to rise by between 1.5 – 4.5 °C for a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is expected by around 2050

If everybody knows so much why is there a 3x variability in the estimates? They are quite straightforward in stating what little they really do know.

I'm sick and tired of political operatives such as you restating scientific findings into memes and partial truths that support your objectives, but bear little relation to the actual science or none whatsoever.

Graphs display data. If you want to use graphs please source them. Otherwise I certainly wouldn't access them. It would not be the first time that "evidence" has been presented that on examination was just propaganda from a radical political group.



Can you state the equilibrium temperature of the planet Earth, and show how you derived it? Then I'll entertain your ideas of higher and lower temperatures occurring statistically significantly more often and/or predictions of future climate change. (because then you have values to plug into formulas to find the variance, right?)

If you can't do that simple thing, shut the fuck up.

I guess to be a bit more accurate, what I'm getting at it's hard for an intellectually curious person not involved in these fields to have a genuinely strong conviction based on their understanding. I tried looking at the data a couple of times. It's so heterogeneous that you'd need to know a lot about the technical details of measurement techniques to even start evaluating it. And many of these things you can't easily look up, and without significant resources you won't get around to play with. I'm sure many of us have an opinion or a gut feeling one way or another and that's fine.

With something like P/NP, at least the "insiders" have less of an edge which is mostly access to other smart people thinking about it I guess?

Interesting point of view. Sometimes it's healthy to change the perspective in order to figure out the right answer.

And it doesn't arouse your suspicion at all that hard data is so hard to find?

Couldn't agree more, there is not much you can do by yourself to check any of this shit. Unlike something like the flat earth, where you can actually do tests/experiments by yourself and you don't even need a lot of scientific knowledge. I would give you merit for this post but I have 0 to give :(
A lot of people here act like they know everything about it because they read a few articles here and there.

Yep. Even asking the question P/NP narrows the group addressed to one in a hundred, and that's extremely optimistic. But "climate change" broadens the focus, to almost a ridiculous chatter with noise everywhere, signal rare.

The prior question I posed to another forum member illustrates the essential issues behind the science of climate change quite nicely.

Can you state the equilibrium temperature of the planet Earth, and show how you derived it?

Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.

Pretty much anyone arguing against climate change has investments in accelerating change.

That's pretty much the only logical conclusion to why people overwhelming deny the actual, scientific, peer reviewed information.

Here you are again with another completely retarded fallacious argument that anyone who doesn't accept your conclusions must be the stooge of big oil. You are a stooge of the would be carbon swap market that would result from your moronic plans to effect cycles you have no proof that humans are causing to begin with. Now I win. See how stupid you sound? Bring some empirical data to the table.

Jeeezus dude. Been reading a lot of your material around here.
You must be really popular at parties...

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
(corrections: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.307.5708.355

Peer (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full)[even corrected (https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.307.5708.355)] reviewed material.

Ya know what. I could just pretend to live in my own fansty and pretend this data and this study didn't exist. That these people didn't put their lives effort into it and the universe was just created last Thursday (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism); however unlike some individuals, I try to stand rooted in actual reality rather than some silly conspiracy.


The thread is why is humanity so stupid about science in reality. Pretty much people choose "ignorance is bliss" and it's perpetuated by individuals for private gains.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes

Oh, that propaganda piece.

This public discussion was started by Oreskes’ brief 2004 article, which included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” The article says “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of anthropogenic global warming. Although this article makes no claim to a specific number, it is routinely described as indicating 100% agreement and used as support for the 97% figure.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#670075ca1157

But don't take his word for it, you can figure it out yourself.

Gee, I guess you've quoted it, now you have to defend it. Of course, many people have noted the sloppy methods in that article, and the way it is mis quoted and abused by political operatives.

In fact, I think it is fair to say that looking at the actual articles, and the way their words were distorted in summarization by O., then in turn how O.'s limited findings were against distorted for pop propaganda usage, is an excellent exercise in understanding the creation of a political meme.

But then, this thread has really not been about science.

"oh, 100% of the papers don't support it, so it's bogus. It's only 97%"

Like do you even listen to yourself? Literally linked to a study saying the overwhelming amount of papers support climate change while a few may not suggest a coloration to humans. You're saying "these papers exist because there's not 100% accuracy". But you've yet to link to any papers. You haven't disproven the original 980 some that support claim change.

https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20962165

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996clch.book.....H

More proof cause "idk man"

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.289.5477.270

Last 1000 years ^^ I recommend reading it.

You've neither quoted the link properly or understood it, or even have a clue what I said.

Also, can you try not to talk like a ten year old?

Thanks.

Can you try to refute scientific argument rather than resort to childish name calling?

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.289.5477.270


Thanks ::)

Well its hard to pinpoint a specific amount of warming because there are so many variables on our planet that affect each other and set off series of events and feedbacks.  Models allow for different scenarios to be put in and spit out different outcomes.  I don't understand why knowing the specific amount of warming that will happen is so important when we know there will be warming.  Its not like 1.5 degrees wouldn't be a huge problem.   You are getting too caught up in the quantitative and ignoring the qualitative.

Increase in temperatures increase plant growth in some places which decreases CO2 which decreases plant growth which increases CO2 but what about plants being cut down by humans which increases CO2 and decreases the amount of CO2 being absorbed.  Theres no certain way to run a climate model.



This is way off-topic and irrelevant.  Are you trying to make the point that CO2 and the greenhouse effect are necessary and natural?  everyone understands and acknowledges that the earth would be very cold without any greenhouse effect..  I'm not sure if you went here because you are trying to prove some side point or you really don't understand.  This was never about getting rid of all CO2 or denying natural cycles.  I feel a strawman coming....

You don't know a damned thing about science. You just learned propane and hydrogen turn into liquids when compressed a couple weeks ago and think cars explode when you shoot the gas tank with a gun.

Re: sirazimuth,
We have been round and round and he never has any logic, its always just his little sophist games. Actually people love me at parties, I just hang out with people smarter than him and we get along fine ;)

There's no straw man here, this is a simple problem.

If one says "The earth is hotter," this implies it is hotter than some standard. Well, what is that standard? That would be the equilibrium temperature of the planet. Deviations from that would be a "hotter planet" or "a cooler planet." Deviations from that would be more or less of "climate change."

That's what I asked. you are of course correct to wonder what's coming from that, but really if you understand some scientific thinking it should be obvious.

Equilibrium temperature is not what you're looking for then.  It is around -18 degrees C.  What you seem to be looking for is what Earth's temperature would be without anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.  This is what the IPCC and UN refer to as "pre industrial" temperature.  Defining it is problematic because of differences in volcanic activity and solar cycles when you go back to the 18th and 19th centuries.  This is what deniers have conflated with solar cycles causing climate change. 

Using 1850-1900 as the preindustrial standard has been common and gives us conservative warming numbers considering industry was well underway before 1850.  It gives us a "lower limit".  Using a correct pre-industrial temperature would certainly give us higher, more accurate warming numbers.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1

Well, I'm surprised. An intelligent and reasoned reply, even though mostly copy and pasted.

Now let's look at the issues, flaws and faults in this.


Actually, no. I asked explicitly for equilibrium temperature.

You've sidestepped and shifted the goal posts, but to another interesting subject. I'm willing to discuss this subject, because it's amusing.


I'm not aware of "deniers conflating" volanic cooling with anything. As for "difference with solar cycles," well, duhh....That's not a "conflation."

If it's not defined, then talk of "climate change" is objectively meaningless. As if a cop wanted to give you a speeding ticket but would not or could not tell you the speed limit. Yes it's exactly the same.

 "Because, shut up."


Wait, so you'd like to define the "Little Ice Age" temperatures as the measure against which climate change is measured?

Excuse me I have a severe case of ROFL.

Now would you like to continue pursuing the elusive mystery of the Thread, "Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?"

Do you have a scientific argument? I don't see any. Anywhere. I see a link, with no explanation.

And I'm serious about your juvenile behavior. Don't expect responses when you engage in it. Also try to actually respond to something posted, not something different or out of left field.

I do have to admit, T relation to P is first chapter chemistry. You know, just thinking about that. T relation to P. And that good old constant R.

if a ball of gas around a planet got hotter due to climate change, it would become ... a bigger ball...Gosh, then there would be more radiative surface area to that ball, and more of that bad greenhouse heat would escape. Wait, if that ball expanded from that bad greenhouse heat, what percent of that bad greenhouse energy went to lift molecules higher against gravity?

     I don't think the mechanism that you describe is accurate. Venus is way hotter than Earth and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times that of Earth on its surface.

If I recall correctly, the upper stratosphere of Venus is highly reflective, so little IR from below gets out.

As for the pressure, a quick google search shows...

The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is about 92 times that of the Earth, similar to the pressure found 900 m (3,000 ft) below the surface of the ocean. The atmosphere has a mass of 4.8×1020 kg, about 93 times the mass of the Earth's total atmosphere.

Thus the mass of air on Venus does approximate pressure. It's mostly CO2 down low, so it would be near liquid, very viscous like trying to walk underwater. Its gas envelope has reached equilibrium conditions.

     From my google search, it appears the main reason that the atmosphere of Venus is thicker is because it is hot enough for the rocks themselves to leach out the carbon dioxide. In Earth's case, what is likely to happen is a warmer troposphere will result in a slightly thicker atmosphere due to water evaporation.(warm air can hold much more water vapor than cooler air.)  This effect will likely counter any loss of atmosphere into space due to expansion. Especially since Earth has the benefit of having a robust magnetic field which protects the atmosphere from being stripped by the solar wind.
  However, I will acknowledge that we just don't know all of the factors. It is possible that the meting of polar ice will disrupt the sea currents and make some regions cooler. This could then self regulate, by causing more snow and the ice caps would become bigger again.

Those are some interesting concepts. Clearly Venus is in equilibrium status. On Earth we seek to answer the question of whether man made influences create a "new" equilibrium status, and whether it is no different, better, worse, or horribly worse than the past millennia.

"Self-reg" has been explored but not nearly enough. I dislike the idea of "Hoping" for self-reg of the planet to cure any flagrant problems man creates.  But also the environmental left tilt that the earth is "Fragile and delicate" I dislike. Strong evidence exists that's not correct.

Lot of issues here. Going to have to think about some things you said. Incidentally I was not hinting that gas ball expansion would cause loss of ionized atmosphere to space, rather that an expansion of the gas envelope would use up energy that would not go into kinetic energy (eg would not cause additional heat or "warming"). Hence first approximation for a given energy input to the Earth or retention of IR 1/2 should be translated to potential energy of position (eg gas ball expansion) and 1/2 to kinetic (eg heat).

But yah, that's moderated or exaggerated by water vapor and clouds. Very complex chaotic system, we are mere observers of.

LOL the progressive view we can control the climate is laughable it's literally the powers that be claiming they can roll back the tides of the ocean.

I don't know any science? Fuck off with that shit you dumb cunt. I'm formally educated with a scientific degree. What fucking qualifications do you have you? Fucking internet troll degrees?

Alright guy; you refused to look at the evidence that I presented after stating "no evidence". You didn't refute the existing evidence and you cannot deny the evidence exists. You shoved your head in the sand. That's the reason people are skeptical about climate change because they REFUSE to see the evidence.

The method of scientific inquiry, formulation of proper hypothesis, critical review of methods and results. The kind of thinking that results in findings which are true and accurate?

Shifting a bit away from the argument that is going on here...

If anyone notices Trump happily asked yesterday on his Twitter "Whatever happened to global warming?" because there is record cold in many parts in the US for thanksgiving... so a short article for anyone who might feel the same way that how can we still have cold weather while there's so much talk about global warming.
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-why-that-freezing-winter-doesn-t-mean-we-can-ignore-global-warming

People are skeptical just because they are less knowledgeable about climate change, science, and they do not believe they are real, they only live in reality but they do not think about the future.

It's indeed a bit strange to see people believing there is no climate change when 99% of scientific agrees on its existence.

But it's a little more complicated to link it to human activities. It's quite easy to show a correlation of course but... Well some people will tell you that correlation isn't cause-effect. And they would be right.

Technically I don't think we have really "proven" that climate change is vastly due to human activities at 100%. We still have tons of indirect proofs and clues but nothing 10% solid.

Nevertheless I still believe it's completely stupid to not take into account that there is a HUGE POSSIBILITY that climate change is entirely man-made and so that we should be extremely cautious about that. Cause after all:
-If we're wrong and planet can completely handle it and everything goes fine well it won't hurt to be cautious about the environment
-If we're right and planet can't take it well it would be necessary to be cautious about environment.

You make some good points.

But why is it that every time some religious style Warmer blurts out ...

"It's Settled Science!"

... I have to restrain myself from bursting out laughing?

The more so, the more they look serious and stern when they pontificate their truths. truthies.

Because sadly tons of people don't exactly know what they're talking about. Media and people report what actual scientists do and say in a too simple way. Hence most people are sure that climate change is 100% acted 100% understood and 100% linked to human activity even though scientists are the first one to admit climate is one of the most complex and chaotic structure so all we're going to reach are plausible assumption, theories and corelations.

And because you just LOVE being the devil's advocate  :-*

Yes, that's true.

And chaos remains the exact opposite of fixed belief.

Just because its not "settled science" (there is none), doesn't mean you shouldn't start to act on it.  If you are dying in the hospital and your doctors recommend a new drug, you don't really have the luxury of waiting until there is 100% proof that it works.  Listen to the experts.  

The most unrealistic of aspect of that analogy is that there is no drug that would also have a completely positive affect on your health regardless of you having the targeted disease or not.


We should start the work and let the research continue, if the research does a 180, then we will stop the work and admit we were wrong but to hell with abandoning science because of the chance we might be wrong.  Mitigating climate change would improve society even if we were completely wrong and the climate stayed exactly the same way forever.   The wild suggested brought up earlier (nuking the sky, painting everything white) are not serious solutions being considered by governments.  

I agree that it is best to err on the side of caution. However, it ought not be used as a springboard for the government to implement burdensome taxes and draconian, pricey regulations. Always remember that when a corporation has to pay hefty taxes or put up with hefty regulations, they either pass the extra cost along to the consumer or move there operations to a country that is more lenient. In the end, the working class gets the shaft, again. Why do you think many disaffected democrats in the rust belt flipped from blue to red and voted for Trump? A promise to raise the minimum wage to 12.50 an hour really doesn't sink in well with someone who used to get paid 20+ an hour with their good union job.

So now you are advocating the genocide of anyone who does not share your ideology?




WHAT EVIDENCE?! Anything even remotely resembling evidence I have already addressed. If you think otherwise please do quote this mysterious unnamed evidence. FYI, just because you have a degree does not make you smart or educated. Frankly I would doubt the veracity of that statement since you think the world runs on movie physics. I have refuted anything you have presented and I am denying any solid empirical data supporting the anthropogenic climate change theory. So far all you have done is tell me it is settled, irrefutable, and I am simply ignoring it even when I have repeatedly directly addressed your every argument.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Oh, wait, you claimed it so it must be true. Really?

What evidence is there that "Mitigating climate change would improve society?"


Actually, there are a great many totally wacko concepts that have been seriously suggested and studied.

Again, this is a statement you have completely fabricated to attempt to make everything look san and reasonable.

1. Stop eating meat and become healthier
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2540540

2. Stop burning fossil fuels and become healthier
Renewable sources don't produce this pollution. 

3. Make better use of water resources
-Most renewables do no require water either.  Freshwater is an issue and electricity currently competes with agriculture and municipalities for freshwater use. 

4. Incentivized sustainability-
Higher energy costs will make us think more about wasting energy thus wasting resources whose cost is linked to energy costs.  More people might decide to live near work instead of commuting.  Less waiting in traffic=less time wasted=more economic productivity. 

These all range from outright lies, to exaggerations or one-sided vegetarian arguments, which ignore facts and studies to the contrary.

1. There are no "benefits" from stopping eating meat.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-vegetarians-live-longer-than-meat-eaters/

2. Outright lie. There isn't any "air or water pollution" from natural-gas fired power plants.

3. Freshwater isn't an issue.

4. There are no "benefits" from higher energy costs. You are using circular logic here. Start with the idea that climate change is bad, then you conclude higher energy costs are good. But that doesn't get you to go back and say that higher energy costs are good even if there is no climate change.

Unless suffering of poor people is to you considered a "benefit."

You've presented nothing that substantiates your argument that "Mitigating climate change is good even if there is no climate change," but that's expected because if one spends time and money pursuing a non problem, that time and money is wasted.

To my mind, people don‘t see what they don’t want to see. It is convenient to to point out such problems as climat change, because if they did, they would need to find a solution, which can be inappropriate to them!

That's one outcome of people "not seeing what they don't want to see."

Another outcome of that is "they would need to find a solution, and so they would generate numerous ill thought out idiocies, and shout that they should be implemented"

Aren't you the guy who is 100% sure climate change has nothing to do with humans? A bit ironic, don't you think?

Nobody who has experienced the smog of Beijing would say that. You may be thinking of someone else.

In fact, any such statement as 100% sure this or that would be anti-scientific.

Oh, wait. We hear that kind of thing all the time from religious believers in the end of the world being near due to human-induced climate change.

And they all have been completely rejected by any scientist not paid by big oil corporations ^^

Actually if I remember well it's only 2 scientists who are responsible for 90% of geoengineering articles published in the last 10 years. The two main theories (spreading nano particles in the sky to reflect incoming solar rays or injecting iron in the oceans to make planctons grow faster and absorb more CO2) are non viable and dellusional.

Unless there is a serious scientific revolution climate engineering is and will stay a dream.

No, there are many other geo-engineering ideas that have been floated. But my comments were not narrowly focused on geo-engineering.

They were addressing wacko ideas about climate change, and for every geo-engineering crazy scheme, there are a hundred or a thousand.

Painting roads and rooftops white is an obvious one.

Promoting electric cars running off coal power plants is another.

Promoting and pushing / forcing use of compact fluorescent bulbs when it was already obvious LED would dominate is yet another.

Want more?

Global warming isn't anything when compared to this...


U.K. govt. agency warning that coming massive space storms will wipe out modern society by killing all electronics (http://U.K. govt. agency warning that coming massive space storms will wipe out modern society by killing all electronics)




8)

Just out of curiousity, how do you explain this guys:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I mean rise of CO2 is quite obviously linked to human activities right?

And temperature rise is also quite obvious: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The link between the two of course, is nearly impossible to prove. But if that's not the CO2 then what is it? Because there is an EXCELLENT explanation of why the CO2 might make the temperature rise, so if you say "it's not true" it means you have something else that is an even better explanatio nright?

You claim the link is obvious and just expect us to accept it as fact. That is not science, that is the beginnings of a cult. Might I also add, as the person pushing the anthropogenic climate change theory, the burden of proof is on you to do so, not vice versa demanding people refute your unsubstantiated claims.

Solar storms and asteroid impacts are the threats we should be concerned about. Both are going to happen, it's just a matter of when.

Climate change is nothing compared to these threats.

There is virtually no acceptable viewpoint in science except skepticism.

I'm glad that you solemnly state "The scientists find..."
"The new research shows..."

But animals are tasty and we like eating them.

Euh... Sorry? I give you an infographic giving both CO2 evolution and temperature evolution, both showing an exceptionnal increase since industrial revolution... How is that the begining of a cult?? What you accept an evidence when you see a phenomenon with both eyes otherwise it's just "unsubstantiated claimes"??

That's perfectly right in theoretical science but there comes a time when you have to apply science to real world and then you have to accept reasonnable reasults. Otherwise you never do anything because nothing is 100% certain in science.

Really.

Skepticism is 100% required when looking at the often-ridiculous, often-insanely expensive and ineffective, often-proposed "solutions" to climate change.

Many of which on examination, are not a solution at all.

Other propose cutting 0.001C for a couple trillion dollars in cost.

Skepticism is the right attitude.

As previously noted, solar storms and asteroid impacts present far deadlier risks than climate change. Please don't just fall in line with what vested money interests told you to be concerned about.

It is the start of a cult because you just expect we accept your ideology without proof. This is appeal to popularity/appeal to authority. Also, the little fact that correlation does not equal causation, and the several leaks revealing the manipulated numbers.

https://i.imgur.com/1c8zAui.jpg

Don't have to answer to that. You're just asking for the impossible.

You want a 100% proof, that doesn't exist. Climate is a complexe and chaotic thing you can't have a complete knowledge of all inputs and outputs that's impossible and will never be done in our lifetime. What we have is a strong correlation and a logical explanation of CO2 impact. If that's not enough for you I'm very sorry to tell you you're not able to think in a logical way.

Scientific methodology means:
-Having hypothesis
-Testing those hypothesis
-Being able to explain the results of the test and be assured they're coherent with the hypothesis
-Assume you're right until you're proven wrong because that will happen one day without any doubt

What you have is a weak, not a strong, correlation.

Nah, we have like a billionity data points that back the evidence.

Climate change, if you are talking about what the simple words mean, is something that happens around the world all the time in most places. But when you take the words and turn them into a phrase that describes global warming, you are mixed up.


Global Cooling is Real – Major Temperature Low 2046? (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/11/martin-armstrong/global-cooling-is-real-major-temperature-low-2046/)




Here it comes. The beginnings of the next ice age.


8)

haha. That's really sciency. Truthy, too.

But if the "prediction from the scientists" is a temperature rise of 1.5-4.5 for a doubling of the CO2, then the spread of the variance itself shows the weak correlation.

Yeah actually, if you expect to have any scientific credibility, you are REQUIRED TO SUPPORT YOUR PREMISE WITH EMPIRICAL DATA. 100% proof for anything doesn't exist, and no I didn't ask for it. Why don't you start by presenting ANY scientifically sound empirical data?

You skipped over a very important word within scientific method. It is empirical data. You test the hypothesis by collecting empirical data, changing a variable, and documenting more empirical data of the results. Simulations, predictions, estimations, and theories do not count as empirical data.

And the curves I gave are not empirical data because?

Because it in no way demonstrates humans are the cause, this is simply an assumption on your part.

Are you serious? Of course it's an assumption!!! The only way to absolutely prove this assumption would be either to create a parralel world identical to ours but without humans and compare the outcomes, or to be able to track down every single molecule of CO2 existing in this world to see how the human intervention influences it!!!

You're asking something completely impossible and this is in no way a scientific way of thinking.

Here a bit of culture for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)

Occam's razor is an old but still completely reliable principle saying that the most simple explanation tends to be the correct one. That's actually how you do empirical science because you can NEVER control all the parameters of a complexe system.

So when you see a curve like this: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

You ask yourself "Hey it's strange, in 400 thousands of years at least the level of CO2 has change in very long period of times always in a rather cyclic way, and just after 1900 the level went completely crazy and nearly doubled in just 100 years while previous cycle were nowhere this high and took thousands of years to change by a few%. What could possibly the cause of this increase in CO2?"

And then you think a bit about it and ask yourself again "what has radically changed in the last 100 years compared to the last 400 thousand years? Oh my, could it be human activity?" and you think a bit more and considering we KNOW human activities emit about 30 gigatons of CO2, which is of course only about 5% of the natural emissions, you reach the conclusion that humans can definitely be the reason of this increase if nature is not able to absorb a 5% additionnal emission that happens in just 100 years of times.

Then you think jsut a tiny bit more and you wonder "are there other possible explanations to this increase?" and as long as you haven't found something as simple as "we produce 5 % additionnal CO2 in an environment which is an equilibrium, hence the rise of CO2 level" or an experiment proving this assumption wrong you can consider it is a correct assumption.


Damn just go to school kid... You need it.

Yes and?

Weak correlations are perfectly acceptable in complex and chaotic systems, strong/weak correlations is an important difference because strong correlations tends to prove while weak correlations tend to give an hint.

But again, the most simple explanation (provided it's a logical one) must be taken as the truth until we either prove it wrong or find an even more simple explanation. That's basically how science progresses. You make assumptions, prove they're logical, show how they explain or solve a problem, and it's considered truth until we have a counter example or a better one.

And I simply correct the assertion made that it was a strong correlation, duh...Odd how many of these basic errors are made over and over by believers in climate change, isn't it? Almost as if they were taught things that were wrong.  Oh, I forgot, they are being taught things that are wrong. Like this case at hand of "strong correlation."

Unrelated, you don't have a correct explanation or a correct use of Occam's Razor, but regardless, numerous anti-razors come to mind. Bolded is my favorite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Controversial_aspects_of_the_razor

Anti-razors[edit]
Occam's razor has met some opposition from people who have considered it too extreme or rash. Walter Chatton (c. 1290–1343) was a contemporary of William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347) who took exception to Occam's razor and Ockham's use of it. In response he devised his own anti-razor: "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on." Although there have been a number of philosophers who have formulated similar anti-razors since Chatton's time, no one anti-razor has perpetuated in as much notability as Chatton's anti-razor, although this could be the case of the Late Renaissance Italian motto of unknown attribution Se non è vero, è ben trovato ("Even if it is not true, it is well conceived") when referred to a particularly artful explanation.
Anti-razors have also been created by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), and Karl Menger (1902–1985). Leibniz's version took the form of a principle of plenitude, as Arthur Lovejoy has called it: the idea being that God created the most varied and populous of possible worlds. Kant felt a need to moderate the effects of Occam's razor and thus created his own counter-razor: "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished."[73]
Karl Menger found mathematicians to be too parsimonious with regard to variables, so he formulated his Law Against Miserliness, which took one of two forms: "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more." A less serious but (some[who?] might say) even more extremist anti-razor is 'Pataphysics, the "science of imaginary solutions" developed by Alfred Jarry (1873–1907). Perhaps the ultimate in anti-reductionism, "'Pataphysics seeks no less than to view each event in the universe as completely unique, subject to no laws but its own." Variations on this theme were subsequently explored by the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges in his story/mock-essay "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius". There is also Crabtree's Bludgeon, which cynically states that "[n]o set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated."

As far as I know, the production of beef contributes the most to the pollution and climate change due to the fact that in order to feed and grow a cow a lot resources are being utilized . Giving away on burgers alone would make a great impact.

Just a thought? How about your quotes and numbers are not true?

Look at the item I bolded. It's a lie. I might buy it in terms of tonnage but not numbers of creatures. There are A LOT of small mammals.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/in-praise-of-the-gilets-jaunes/


For years we have lived in a climate of ‘You can’t say that’. You can’t criticise mass immigration — that’s xenophobia. You can’t oppose the EU — that’s Europhobia. You can’t raise concerns about radical Islam — that’s Islamophobia. You can’t agitate against climate-change policy — that’s climate-change denialism, on a par with Holocaust denialism, and anyone who dares to bristle against eco-orthodoxy deserves to be cast out of polite society. And yet now, in this populist moment, people are daring to say precisely these unsayable things. They’re standing up to the EU. They’re demanding that immigration become a democratic concern rather than something worked out for us by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. And now they’re even grating against the hitherto unquestionable religious-style diktat that we must all drive less, shop less and do less in order to ‘save the planet’.

Just to remind you you're a bit alone here.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

94% of scientists agree that global warming is real and 84% that it's human based.

How does it feel to be in the same bag as people claiming Earth is flat or evolution is a lie?

You are a fucking moron, this has already been repeatedly addressed in this thread, and this is not how science works.

Oh sorryyyyyyyy I didn't know science didn't work as a cooperative peer to peer consensus. Oh silly me who forgot that science is only 100% hard proofs or nothing!

I can be dumb sometimes right?

I mean we obviously only have a binary system in science: proved and not proved.

That's how things work  :D

EDIT: I might be a fucking moron but at least I'm not in the same bag as Flat Earthers or Evolution denyers. Funny you're the one claiming to be a "logical and scientific" fellas. I guess the 94% of scientists of the planet are as dumb as me?

Oh my god I forgot that xD

TECSHARE you're really a funny guy!

Well the bad side is that you actually have the right to vote... That's one of the problems of democracy, even people without the slightest insight of how science or logic work can vote.

Still it's funny! So i guess you gonna come back all grumpy asking for some "SOLID EMPIRICAL DATA" right?

Before you have consensus you need to produce empirical data, none of which you are able to present. You don't get to skip the most critical step of the scientific method then still claim you are representing science.

"94% of the scientists on the planet" I reiterate - you are a moron.



Yeah, everyone knows empirical data is meaningless in science.

You know, I would hope, that you have really presented a very unscientific viewpoint here.

(Go along with what I/we say the majority says on a subject.)

How does it feel to be in the same bag as people claiming Earth is flat or evolution is a lie?


Argument by ridicule.

You are smarter than this and can do better.

No, he's not, and he can't. He already thinks he is preaching from a position of intellectual superiority as you can tell from his flat earth comments as if these subjects have any relation.

Of course I can't.

There is nothing that can be answered to you, you can't be proven wrong.

Using ridiculous comparison is a tool to try to make you think a little bit but it doesn't seem it has worked.


You are asking for empirical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity.
This doesn't exist, cannot exist, will never exist. That's all.


But if like TECSHARE you believe that's how science work, then you just need to go back to school. This is not how science work, this has never been and will never be.

No, I will admit when I am wrong, but you aren't smart enough to be the guy to put me in that position in the overwhelming majority of cases. At least you can admit your global warming cult has no empirical data backing it, and therefore has no science backing it.

This is simply false.

Serious question coming.

I got my degree in computer science so I don't do much research. But I think I know about 30 to 35 people working in research currently or having worked in research in the last 10 years. From numerous background: Chemistry, Photonic, Quantum Physics and 3 in "soft science" such as psychology.

I don't know anyone working like that. Science isn't all about empirical data at all contrary to what you think... Have you ever talked to someone working as a scientific? Actually making some research?

Absolutely not.

I'll admit there is no scientifical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activities. That's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from saying there is no empirical data backing global warming theories.

I'll try to turn the table a bit.

What would you consider a reasonnable proof?

Lets review scientific method:

https://i.imgur.com/TU1TtFK.jpg


Hmm... looks like you are skipping the most critical step which is where the actual evidence comes from and substituting more theories instead.


https://i.imgur.com/aPX61Un.jpg

You don't get scientific knowledge thru osmosis (look it up), so mentioning you know people who do research is meaningless. Every statement you make gives me ever more examples of your total inability to comprehend science and scientific method.

Ok well I did my best but you really don't want to try and read. You just build your own walls and I can't do much against that...

Do you agree on the fact that matter is made of atoms?

How do you think this theory was created? Where do you think it comes from? Empirical data?
Absolutely not.
Because there was no data... The technical means of the 19th century didn't allow John Dalton to imagine experiments. There was no experiments! He just imagined a theory and it answered some good questions, seemed logical, had no counter examples.

You seem to believe science is either "proven" or "not proven" but that's not the case... I don't know how to tell you otherwise: it doesn't work that way. That's all.


EDIT: To be clear.
If there is an experiment to test your theory then empirical data is essential.
If there is no experiment to test your theory, then empirical data is meaningless but it doesn't mean the theory is.

Is it easy enough to understand like this?

Oh yeah, I remember what it is to debate with TECSHARE. He just throws a bunch of studies or statistics around and thinks he is clever. He never makes his own assumptions about anything, probably unable to.

Once again, that's not how it works, as anyone with a high school level science education knows. Empirical data doesn't become "meaningless", and neither do theories. The fact is they are simply not interchangable even under these circumstances.

TL;DR

STOP PRETENDING YOUR THEORIES ARE SCIENCE


So what part of the topic does this have to do with? I know you are obsessed with me, but please try to contribute something.

Damn, seems my engineering degree is false then.

Let's do some revert thinking then. What would you accept as a reasonnable evidence of climate change proof?

I KNOW that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but the fact is that pretty much everyone agrees that the provided evidences are, by large, enough to prove the claim. You're saying it's not the case.

Please then what would be a solid proof?

What?

No data supporting the greenhouse effect?

No data showing how much carbon humans have released into the atmosphere?

Maybe you meant there is no deductive proof but the association of combustion--->CO2----> warming is solid

Of course but TECSHARE is simply denying that.
There are proof for temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity producing CO2. There aren't any data for the link between the two simply because such data can't possibly exist. And all his argumentation is to say that the linked aren't proven because there is no data which is a complete logical fallacy of course.

But I already tried this way so I'm trying another right now. I have few hopes but well...

If you are an engineer I hope to Christ you don't engineer anything people's lives depend on. Either way engineers are not research scientists. Engineers are trained to be told what a data-set and tolerances are and follow that, they aren't trained in research science, so the fact you have an engineering degree is meaningless.

Lets not do some "revert thinking" where you try to pawn off the burden of proof upon me when it is yours as the one presenting the premise. "pretty much everyone" does not agree, and your supposed support of that claim has been thoroughly demonstrated to be garbage already in previous analysis of your "94% of all scientists" figure.


Instead of solid proof, how about you start with some empirical data, ANY EMPIRICAL DATA... AT ALL.



You don't even know the definitions of the words you use and you are trying to lecture me on scientific theory. There is no link between climate change and human activity proven. End of story. There is no fallacy here, except you trying to claim it is a fallacy.





Oh look, its Captain Postmodern with his astounding powers of poor reading comprehension just to round this all off.

You mean giving up ;D I see many doing it already on this thread, it is tiresome when honest discussions turn to personal ridiculing.

As far as I am concerned you lost the argument from the get go with your unscientific statements which when reminded of, you responded with ad hominem insults.

Any idea how ridiculous that is?

Less ridiculous than considering science is built through empirical data I hope.

What do you do when a blind man is saying you're wrong about the color of a picture? Do you have any idea how exhausting it is to explain to a child something while he's denying it simply because he decided he won't listen? This is exactly what's happening here.

You have the balls to claim a worldwide scientific consensus is false and based on unscientific evidences and reasonning while thousands of studies and professionnals have diligently digged up the subject.

You're the one claiming 94% of the scientist of our planet are wrong about what science is about.

How ridiculous is that?

You talk about it being a cult while you refuse to act any near to a scientifical way. You refuse evidences that are considered as accurate and satisfactory by pretty much anyone without justifying yourselves. Then you refuse to answer what evidence you would consider admissible because "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim".

How ridiculous is that?

If you weren't in a country where a degree needs to go in debt maybe you would have had the occasion to actually go to school and educate yourself. Then maybe you wouldn't say such nonsense as "empirical data is the core of science" which is both false and an insult to all the scientists.

But hey, I'm the one who is ridiculous I guess?

Though I'm not the one acting exactly like a religious fanatic saying "but where is the proof that god doesn't exist?" Because that's what you're doing here. "Where is the empirical proof linking CO2, human activities and climate change?" is not a valid question simply because there can't be a proof. You ask for empirical data, "not theory, not simulation, real data" well guess what? The only way to obtain such data would be to clone our universe and observe it without humans.

So either educate yourself or stop trying to act like scientist. You're fanatics, not scientists, and you're acting EXACTLY like flat earthers or evolution denyers.
-> going against a global scientific consensus without pointing at scientific incoherences
-> refusing evidences without any reasons
-> claiming those evidences are "not enough" exactly like evolution denyers asks for "the missing link"
-> refusing to say "this evidence would convince me" because you know damn well there would be someone to find it considering the amount of work done in the field.

How ridiculous is that?

ALL SCIENTISTS... GLOBALLY... mmkay. I will let you have fun on a snipe hunt trying to source that like a good little monkey. Now go... source your claim Mr. smarty pants.

Like... That was litteraly my post one page ago?


Do you suffer from short term memory loss? Cause that would explain a lot.

Quote me exactly the line from your source please where it says 94% scientists globally support your claim. This is your claim... you produce it.

No. I'm done with you. If you can't even read a 5 pages academic source there is NO WAY you can engage in a scientific debate.

Last time I checked 84+10=94

Read the article he posted again.

You know, I keep reading it over and over again, and I don't see any reference to globally...

I have no idea how, why and how much the climate is changing, but I KNOW this:

cca 25 years ago, we had snow from like mid November to February (Ofc, not the WHOLE time, all the time, but there was a lot of it).

For the last....10 years or so?  If I see snow for more than a week (and that's like 1-3 times per WINTER), I'm shocked

No it's pointless.

Give it up. I should have done it years ago... But everytime I tell myself "ok this time you stop answering this pitty individual" he goes on with something bigger.

The worst thing is that contrary to BADECKER he doesn't have the honesty to say he's just being a religious fanatic. He tries to argue there is some sccientific logic behind what he says and he spits so much NONSENSE about scientific methodology and science in general...

My years of studies in scientific field and the tons of people I know currently doing research is just making me eager to kick his ass for his disrespect...

Yes, scientific methodology is such nonsense right? xD  You know people who do research...well gee I guess their knowledge is magically imparted to you now isn't it?

Ah yes, right as you are faced with admitting your statistic does not represent the "global consensus" you claimed it did, now you "give up", again, for like the 5th time now... uh huh.

Buddy, if you ever even set eyes on me you would turn tail and run.

Scientists do live outside of America.

Learn to read and get back to me.

You just like to argue with random people on the Internet, for no apparent reason.  Do you need validation?
Is that it?

As for the article, it says 94% of scientists agree that global warming is happening.

I think we are done here.

Sigh... its sad that so many lazy and or ignorant people demand to be spoon fed all the time rather than actually taking the time to analyze really simple stuff. I promise using your brain stops hurting after a while once you get used to it.

He is claiming that his source represents a GLOBAL consensus among scientists, which is not at all what his source says. His source is a POLL of a small portion of ONLY AMERICAN scientists, but not like any of you take the time to read your own sources right?

Yes, we are done here.

Omg do you know how scientific fields actually work? ><

Just... Just...

Oh man I don't know anymore.

Ok let's say you're right. Only American scientists believe that global warming is man made. Rest of the world is probably believing something else. I don't care at this point, in sight of so much bad faith no one can do anything. It's litteraly impossible.

Un-giving up so soon? My point is you are lazy and you don't even bother to read YOUR OWN SOURCE material, and claim it says things it does not say. Probably doesn't matter, what matters is YOU are making the claim and YOU have the burden of proof. Just guessing and assuming is not science.

No no I'm not debating. You're completely right. My source doesn't support anything. It's useless and has no link to my claim. You're right on everything you've said.

Well I am glad you can passive aggressively, and in a sad attempt at sarcasm admit that.

What do you want in the end?

Science is a global peer to peer work. Scientists exchanges with others all around the world all the time. There is a reason why any scientific work is done in English...
I put a source saying 94% American scientists believe climate change is real and your point is "it's not a global consensus because it's only America" ???

What can I answer to that?

My point is what I say my point is, not what you say my point is.

But... IT IS A PROOF OF GLOBAL CONSENSUS!!!!

It is EXACTLY what I said it is ><

And your ad hominem attack doesn't change anything!

"The survey of scientists was conducted online with
a random sample of 2,533 members of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), from May 1 to June 14, 2009"

Page 11, your "study" (poll) http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

It represents 2533 American scientists. If you have evidence that further supports your assertions present it. Otherwise stop claiming this source supports your assumptions.

P.S. learn what an ad hominem attack actually is.

xD

*Drops the mic*

Yes you are a joke. 2500 geographically isolated people is an efficient sample size for a global group you say? Sounds good to me. Lets laugh and pretend its obvious you are right and I am wrong rather than attempt a reply. Oh right... you have no reply.

I'm just leaving this in case someone might be fooled by something as stupid as considering 2500 scientists as "isolated" which is a complete nonsense as science is ONLY peer to peer. Scientists can't be isolated, that makes no sense.

But just in case:
http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage

Google is your friend.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Just relax.  The debate is over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEb49cZYnsE&feature=youtu.be

Yes, isolated. As in isolated to the USA, because they only polled people in the USA. Lets ignore the fact that you totally ignore fundamentals of sources, reading them, or accurately representing them, and get to something more fundamental. Where in this poll is the part that humans are the cause? oh right...


"By contrast, 84% of scientists say the earth is warming because of human activity. Scientists also are far more likely than the public to regard global warming as a very serious problem: 70% express this view, compared with 47% of the public. Public attitudes about whether global warming represents a serious problem have changed little in recent years."

So if you actually bothered to read your own source, you would see your claims reduced, even further, as 84% argue humans are the cause, not 94%. Additionally science is not a popularity contest.

A poll of scientists is not a substitute for PEER REVIEWED EMPIRICAL DATA of which, you have none, by your own admission.



King reading comprehension declares the debate over, it must be over!


That's a cool youtube video... and it only took about 10 seconds before I was listening to a late night talk show host. DEBATE CLEARLY OVER!

Your source material: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

A retort:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

Note this kind of clever double talk does not advance any realistic understanding.

For example, a scientist would answer YES if he thought the effect of humans was 0.001C in a hundred years, or YES if he thought the effect of humans was 2.000C in a hundred years.

Essentially, this is lying using a survey, and just another example of the politicalization of science.

Climate changes, but not because of people.
The climate cycles are repeating and have nothing to do with humans. That CO2 is allegedly bad for the environment, can not be, because plants need CO2 to grow.

It also ignores the reality that simply funding thousands of sham studies over and over again does not constitute scientific consensus. It constitutes that scientists will say what they are paid to say by the people who fund them. ACTUAL scientific consensus is based on... can we guess what I am going to say next?

EMPIRICAL DATA






Some bonus reading material. http://www.cfact.org/2018/12/30/lets-do-follow-the-climate-money/

The article is a criticism of green capitalism which does indeed need to be criticized.  Green capitalists think we can buy and sell our way out of this mess and for the reasons laid out in the article, they are wrong. 

We not only need to shift to renewables but we HAVE to consume a lot less and theres just no way around that.  It can't be shifting the money and consumption somewhere else, but we have to find ways to reduce the consumption.

For example, the green capitalist would say everyone should just trade their gas car for an electric car but I would say we should build livable communities where people can walk instead of needing to drive.  The most environmentally friendly trip is the one that doesn't have to happen in the first place. 

It's quite common that a scientific article will contain on the first page some type of "statement of faith" regarding climate change.

For example, I recall one that said "The findings are consistent with man-made climate change."

Now that ACTUALLY means anything and everything. The findings may be consistent with 1001 things, but here is mentioned one. Regardless, the authors have done their job, with a secret smirk, and gone ahead with their research.

This article would have been counted in the sham "consensus" but in fact has nothing at all to do with climate change cause or effect.

Science should be based on empirical evidence, facts, and numbers. To have personal agendas from corporations and private organizations skewing the data and making false claims makes it difficult for the rest of us to know what is going on.

Capitalism isn't the problem. Consumption is a problem. Consumption is a problem because we are infinitely inflating our money supply to the point that it no longer accurately represents the value of the resources that it was intended to be a token for. Welcome to the hell your pet central bank Socialist inflationary policies have created for us.

Technology is being suppressed. There are many technologies that I know for a fact exist which could solve many if not all of these issues of consumption. The problem is the economy has developed into this easy money casino system where it is all about speed and money velocity as a result of inflation. If there was a less debased money system, the market price discovery mechanism for natural resources would again start representing the ACTUAL COSTS of extracting it from the Earth, including the dwindling supply.

As a result of this existing situation products are designed with planned obsolescence in mind, designed to fail and be re-bought, or be made obsolete by creating the "next generation" of a product. I think more than anything what is needed is a cultural change regarding how we all personally look at our own consumption habits in an objective way, and try to change that, then the cultural change will follow by leading by example.

In summary, technology that could break these old cycles of consumption are purposely being held back because they allow for the elite to keep control over the masses in favor of fake environmental movements that serve them as red herrings, as well as the next generation of ponzi schemes. The same elite which favor your central bank inflationary policies I might add.

That's exactly right, although for "climate change", to the list of "corporations and private organizations" we must add governments, political forces, non-profit advocacy groups, and similar things.

To the question of the OP, the ONLY scientific response to any belief system assertion such as those of the "climate change ideology"  is skepticism.

Hello, Lysencho.

You are ignoring that while it's happening right in front of you. People are ordering far more things online and having them delivered, rather than "going shopping."

My number of trips to places like Home Depot is way, way down compared to 5 years ago.

As for walking instead of driving? Around here there must have been ten thousand Bird electric scooters dropped all over, just grab one and go. That's capitalism at work, letting the users decide if and where they like it. You? You'd just tell them how to live. Here are your very words. (And in the name of Saving the Planet...)

we should build livable communities where people can walk instead of needing to drive.

climate change is the thing for fools and parrots of hysteria to worry about.

here's the real thing that's coming. either sooner, or later....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/01/08/dinosaur-killing-asteroid-triggered-a-mile-high-tsunami-across-the-globe/#17a80e246ae5

No. Jesus will return and save us first.    8)

Yeaaaah!

We've replace addiction to petrol by addiction to Lithium! Horay \o/

But just think. You can still buy a Toyota Hybrid, and have BOTH Evils.

The effect and proof of climate change is obvious for all to see, wondering why people ar still skeptical about climate change.
According to wikipedia it is the  Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time. This is real and obvious in our society.

It is really easy to just claim it is obvious. Interesting though, any time people ask for sources there never seems to be any actual empirical data behind it... just models, simulations, and theories.

By it's very definition, "Climate" is three successive ten year histories.

So suppose you have these decades. 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000.

Using statistics, you define climate for 1950-1979. You can then discuss "climate change" relating to the period 1960-1989. That's assuming you don't have cooked or slanted data.

By it's very nature, the effect and proof or lack of effect, and lack of proof, is HISTORICAL.

It's not "obvious for all to see." Quite the reverse.

What you are referring to is things like the hot day in August, when the media blitz talks about the "unprecedented heat wave." You are talking about propaganda, pure and simple.

Climate change doesn't mean a changing climate. It means global warming, the way it is used. Climate change has always been around us all the time. Some localized areas simply see less climate change than others.


Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Scientists Expect Global Cooling (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/255344-2019-01-30-amidst-global-warming-hysteria-nasa-scientists-expect-global-cooling.htm)




8)