Attn: Human Influenced Climate Change deniers

[iCEBREAKER]

You just made me realize how much I've missed you.

*hugs*

Heh, we do have a lot of great fun around here don't we?   

[1714856885]

1714856885

[1714856885]

1714856885

[1714856885]

1714856885

[Spendulus]

You just made me realize how much I've missed you.

*hugs*

Heh, we do have a lot of great fun around here don't we?   

Wait, it's only 95% that has to be taken on and you already got'em?

What's left for ME?

[counter]

I don't know why people want to argue the deniers are wrong instead of just showing the evidence that proves their point.  They will call people names all day long but when it comes to supplying any irrefutable evidence the story is always the same.. there is none.  What is even more unsettling is the conflict in the scientific field over this topic.

[hologram]

Stop with the 95% scientist bullshit, it's a logical fallacy.

Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.[1]

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][3][4][5] as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[iCEBREAKER]

I don't know why people want to argue the deniers are wrong instead of just showing the evidence that proves their point.  They will call people names all day long but when it comes to supplying any irrefutable evidence the story is always the same.. there is none.  What is even more unsettling is the conflict in the scientific field over this topic.

Bro, you've got science all wrong.  Science is not an ideology, it is a methodical process.  Certainty does not exist in science.

"Irrefutable evidence" does not exist and is an anti-concept much like the asinine self-refuting phrase 'settled science' dismissed earlier.

"Irrefutable evidence" applies in philosophy and logic (relations of ideas), not in empirical studies (matters of facts).

This famous distinction is called Hume's Fork:

All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic ... [which are] discoverable by the mere operation of thought ... Matters of fact, which are the second object of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume%27s_fork

Thus, "conflict in the scientific field" is the most healthy, natural thing in the world.

If the scientific field lacked conflict, it would not be scientific but rather something else entirely.

It's cute to watch scientific illiterates, who don't understand the basics of empiricism and often confuse synthetic and analytical propositions, call other people rude names.

It must really suck to be so profoundly ignorant that one is reduced to calling people offensive names like 'Denier' while believing that character assassination is a valid form of discourse.   

[protokol]

OK, let me try and clarify some points.

First off, I don't think the science is settled. Although I am firmly leaning towards "It's happening, and it's probably due to greenhouse gases produced by humans", I am trying to keep an open mind here and I try to read all evidence for and against without prejudice. I think we should be researching this as much as we can, for many years into the future.

I use the word "denier" to describe people that think they know 100% that we're being told a lie. Unless you have a PhD in climatology/geography or similar, or can fully understand every detail/computer model in every climate/geography scientific journal, then sorry, but you're not really qualified to say "Open your eyes, it's obvious that it's due to [insert other cause here]".

I don't pretend to know for sure one way or the other, I'm just making an educated opinion on what I know, and what I read by other people that I believe know better than me (mainly scientists/climatologists, definitely not journalists or politicians).

The real point of this thread was not to start another climate change argument, it was to investigate the issues we might face by our choices going into the future. For example, what might happen if it's true and we do nothing, or what might happen if it's false and we do act.

The only reasonable argument I've read so far involves the hypothetical pain/suffering of many people, due to humanity choosing renewable energy over fossil fuels. I'd appreciate it if someone who believes this could try and refute my post above, because it's an argument that I've heard from many people and it just doesn't make sense to me.

Some of you seem to think that I'm trying to argue/get a reaction out of people, I'll admit that my OP did come across as a little provocative, but that was not the intention (and as you can see I made a follow up post clarifying my position more clearly).

So let's keep "who's right/wrong" out of this thread (There's the reddit climate change thread for that), and try and look at the "what-ifs"...

[Spendulus]

OK, let me try and clarify some points.

First off, I don't think the science is settled. Although I am firmly leaning towards "It's happening, and it's probably due to greenhouse gases produced by humans", I am trying to keep an open mind here and I try to read all evidence for and against without prejudice. I think we should be researching this as much as we can, for many years into the future.

I use the word "denier" to describe people that think they know 100% that we're being told a lie. Unless you have a PhD in climatology/geography or similar, or can fully understand every detail/computer model in every climate/geography scientific journal, then sorry, but you're not really qualified to say "Open your eyes, it's obvious that it's due to [insert other cause here]". .....

First, it's extremely easy, as you've seen in this thread, to point out lies we are being told.  However, that really does not prove or disprove any fundamental questions.

Second, don't place too much credence in the "PdD in climatology".  That actually makes me laugh, because the guys that go into that field really are not the sharpest tools in the shed, and second, because that doesn't make them an expert in glaciers, sediment, atmospheric effects of gases...in any of a large number of scientific fields, unless by chance it is the specific field they studied.

"PdD in physics" is much more handy regarding the fundamental assumptions and questions of "global warming".

The computer models are not really helpful.  This is a very, very politicized field.

I suggest reading

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/

for fun and entertainment.  Example as to why, let me quote the first two reader responses to the article linked to above.


R. Shearer says:   
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 am   

Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”


Leonard Weinstein says:   
August 2, 2014 at 8:21 am   

R. Shearer,
It does not matter if natural cooling exactly cancelled out AGW, or if there is no significant AGW. The supporters of CAGW insisted that CO2 is the main force that drives average temperature, and insisted it would totally dominate any natural variation (except short term volcanic effects). Skeptics have contended that either the forcing was much smaller than promoted, so that it was not a real problem, or that natural variation dominated the human CO2 contribution, so that it was not the main controlling method. These skeptics positions have been supported with actual data evidence, although which of the two factors is more important is not fully resolved.

The issue was the possible onset of a major rising temperature problem due to CO2 increase, and it has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is significant reason to think an average cooling trend for at least several decades is more likely than a warming trend, following the plateau.

[iCEBREAKER]

I don't pretend to know for sure one way or the other, I'm just making an educated opinion on what I know, and what I read by other people that I believe know better than me

Doom-peddling climate change threat construction is just a giant scam to increase government control over our lives.

Didn't you see the ClimateGate headlines a few years ago?  They got caught red-handed politicizing and faking science!

Climategate: Why it matters

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

The allegations over the past week are fourfold: that climate scientists controlled the publishing process to discredit opposing views and further their own theory; they manipulated data to make recent temperature trends look anomalous; they withheld and destroyed data they should have released as good scientific practice, and they were generally beastly about people who criticised their work. (You’ll note that one of these is far less serious than the others.)

It's settled: Climate change is caused by the sun, and sometimes volcanoes.  Not man.  Because ClimateGate.

[Spendulus]

It's settled: Climate change is caused by the sun, and sometimes volcanoes.  Not man.  Because ClimateGate.

I learnt everthang I needes har.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4

An fom dis dude two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

[Wilikon]

Here's a quick and easy home experiment by Bill Nye to demonstrate the effects of greenhouse gases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8

So if Earth was the size of a small ball, if the Sun was at the same distance as the Moon, if the amount of CO2 was at least ( I am guessing, eyeballing the CO2 pump and the volume of air inside the container) twice or three time the volume of the Earth's total atmosphere then there will be proof Nye's experiment is settled?

Interesting...

Edit: I see it was debunked already. Came late into this party

[Spendulus]

Here's a quick and easy home experiment by Bill Nye to demonstrate the effects of greenhouse gases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8

So if Earth was the size of a small ball, if the Sun was at the same distance as the Moon, if the amount of CO2 was at least ( I am guessing, eyeballing the CO2 pump and the volume of air inside the container) twice or three time the volume of the Earth's total atmosphere then there will be proof Nye's experiment is settled?

Interesting...

Edit: I see it was debunked already. Came late into this party

Also, if you increase heat retention in the atmosphere by any means, including co2, the atmosphere expands, and there is more radiant losses to space because of the larger surface area of that expanded envelope.
Technically here we could say that the gas molecules have 1/2 their energy in kinetic and half in potential, but both increase when it gets hotter.  Potential energy means height against gravity, for an atmosphere.

This is a simple language proof that clouds rule climate, by the way.  That's why the CERN Cloud experiments were so important.  Real scientists know these details, the 8th grade CO2 argument is for the simple people.

[iCEBREAKER]

if you increase heat retention in the atmosphere by any means, including co2, the atmosphere expands, and there is more radiant losses to space because of the larger surface area of that expanded envelope.
Technically here we could say that the gas molecules have 1/2 their energy in kinetic and half in potential, but both increase when it gets hotter.  Potential energy means height against gravity, for an atmosphere.

This is a simple language proof that clouds rule climate, by the way.  That's why the CERN Cloud experiments were so important.  Real scientists know these details, the 8th grade CO2 argument is for the simple people.

How dare you suggest the existence of negative-feedback mechanisms which produce stability and reduce the effect of fluctuations?

How much are the Koch Bros paying you to destroy the world?   

The Science is Settled^TM.  Obey the consensus, or you will be called a (*cough*Holocaust*cough*) Denier, capisce?

[Spendulus]

if you increase heat retention in the atmosphere by any means, including co2, the atmosphere expands, and there is more radiant losses to space because of the larger surface area of that expanded envelope.
Technically here we could say that the gas molecules have 1/2 their energy in kinetic and half in potential, but both increase when it gets hotter.  Potential energy means height against gravity, for an atmosphere.

This is a simple language proof that clouds rule climate, by the way.  That's why the CERN Cloud experiments were so important.  Real scientists know these details, the 8th grade CO2 argument is for the simple people.

How dare you suggest the existence of negative-feedback mechanisms which produce stability and reduce the effect of fluctuations?

How much are the Koch Bros paying you to destroy the world?   

The Science is Settled^TM.  Obey the consensus, or you will be called a (*cough*Holocaust*cough*) Denier, capisce?

LOL... I guess I could .... okay, confession.  See msg for a laugh...

[iCEBREAKER]

LOL... I guess I could .... okay, confession.  See msg for a laugh...

heh, great minds and all that

[Spendulus]

LOL... I guess I could .... okay, confession.  See msg for a laugh...

heh, great minds and all that

So remember...it's not warming that means all that heats being stored up, like in a pressure cooker, way down in the deep.  And it's going to burst out, when GAIA says.  Then, like the climate whipsaws, and billions die.

Wait...okay I'm in the real world here, right, not the made up world? 

Forget all that.  LOL...

[Ibian]

There is a different angle that avoids that whole messy argument about humans changing the weather or not.

For hundreds of thousands of years we have been going through periods of heating and cooling, commonly known as ice ages. Roughly speaking, the cold periods are ten times as long as the warm periods. We are currently near the end of a warm period. If the alarmists are right that we are warming the planet, then that's a good thing because it provides a non-zero chance that we can slow down or stop the next ice age. We may even have done so already. And if they are wrong then efforts to reverse it is a waste of money. So keep those furnaces burning. A new ice age would be a far greater disaster than their small minds can comprehend.

[Spendulus]

There is a different angle that avoids that whole messy argument about humans changing the weather or not.

For hundreds of thousands of years we have been going through periods of heating and cooling, commonly known as ice ages. Roughly speaking, the cold periods are ten times as long as the warm periods. We are currently near the end of a warm period. If the alarmists are right that we are warming the planet, then that's a good thing because it provides a non-zero chance that we can slow down or stop the next ice age. We may even have done so already. And if they are wrong then efforts to reverse it is a waste of money. So keep those furnaces burning. A new ice age would be a far greater disaster than their small minds can comprehend.

Okay, let's develop this concept.  Let's accept two alarmist arguments, something like the "worst case of the Warmers" happens, 5F temperature increase and "billions die".

Let's assume we have another the planet pivots to the start of the Ice Age, in 3000AD and it lasts 100,000 years.  Further assume all people live 100 years.

CASE A:  Warmers get us to stop increasing carbon.

Population keeps increasing to say 20B year 3000AD.  Ice age happens, hardly anyone lives.

CASE B:  Warmers fail planet heats up 5F.  By year 2100 3B have died.  Population is steady at 4B until year 103,000.

Hmm....

[Schleicher]

Okay, let's develop this concept.  Let's accept two alarmist arguments, something like the "worst case of the Warmers" happens, 5F temperature increase and "billions die".
Let's assume we have another the planet pivots to the start of the Ice Age, in 3000AD and it lasts 100,000 years.  Further assume all people live 100 years.

CASE A:  Warmers get us to stop increasing carbon.
Population keeps increasing to say 20B year 3000AD.  Ice age happens, hardly anyone lives.

CASE B:  Warmers fail planet heats up 5F.
 By year 2100 3B have died.  Population is steady at 4B until year 103,000.

Hmm....

Case A: Warmers get us to stop increasing carbon.
In the year 3000 it doesn't matter anymore if there's a ice age or not because the technology will look like magic to us

[Spendulus]

Okay, let's develop this concept.  Let's accept two alarmist arguments, something like the "worst case of the Warmers" happens, 5F temperature increase and "billions die".
Let's assume we have another the planet pivots to the start of the Ice Age, in 3000AD and it lasts 100,000 years.  Further assume all people live 100 years.

CASE A:  Warmers get us to stop increasing carbon.
Population keeps increasing to say 20B year 3000AD.  Ice age happens, hardly anyone lives.

CASE B:  Warmers fail planet heats up 5F.
 By year 2100 3B have died.  Population is steady at 4B until year 103,000.

Hmm....

Case A: Warmers get us to stop increasing carbon.
In the year 3000 it doesn't matter anymore if there's a ice age or not because the technology will look like magic to us

probably the key question is the amount of lost heat when the planet enters the ice age part of the mischelovich (sp??) cycle, and how that might compare with heat added to the atmosphere through additional co2.

however if "deniers" are right, and additional co2 has a low effect, that might not stop an ice age.

[Razick]

What if you're wrong?

I believe the climate is warming, but I'm not sure it's as bad of a thing as people make it out to be. It's been warmer before. We need to use common sense in fighting it. Puting more people in poverty is not a reasonable price to pay for a slight reduction in US emissions that will be more than canceled out by china alone.