overtone Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 There seems to be others who are also skeptical about this danger from CO2 thing; http://www.petitionproject.org/ 9,000 of them have Ph.D's. Are you falling for that crap again? Didn't the last five times some Koch financed propaganda operation put out a list like that, and it was bunkum again, teach you anything? Every couple of years the fossil fuel industry's propaganda outfits put out a list of "scientists" they claim have signed a petition or answered a poll or published a paper that indicates they have serious doubts about AGW. Every single one of these lists so far has been fraudulent - actively dishonest - going back to the 90s. Enough is enough - the people putting these lists out are proven liars, and that is sufficient response to them.
Ophiolite Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 There seems to be others who are also skeptical about this danger from CO2 thing; http://www.petitionproject.org/ 9,000 of them have Ph.D's. Maybe the consensus is the other way around. Three days since you posted this Tim and it has been thoroughly devalued. Will you now do the honourable thing and concede the petition fails utterly to provide any meaningful support for AGW scepticism?
Unity+ Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Three days since you posted this Tim and it has been thoroughly devalued. Will you now do the honourable thing and concede the petition fails utterly to provide any meaningful support for AGW skepticism? How has the source and claim been devalued? I apologize if I haven't been keeping up with the previous discussions about the statistics on this matter.
swansont Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 How has the source and claim been devalued? I apologize if I haven't been keeping up with the previous discussions about the statistics on this matter. How about reading the previous half-dozen or so posts?
Wild Cobra Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) How has the source and claim been devalued? I apologize if I haven't been keeping up with the previous discussions about the statistics on this matter. I agree. How has the wording of the petition been devalued? We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. Edited December 4, 2014 by Wild Cobra
John Cuthber Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 I agree. How has the wording of the petition been devalued? Nice try at a straw man there. It's not the wording that was discredited, but the idea that it's significant.
ZVBXRPL Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Am I a global warming Skeptic? Depends on the exact question being asked. Do I believe that politicians care about the planet? 100% NO. Anyone who believes that a politician CARES about anything other than themselves is very naive. Do I believe that politicians care about money? 100% YES. Do I believe that the planet is getting warmer? Don't know. Hope it is. Do I believe that MAN is the main contributing factor for climate change. NO, that is a completely ridiculous suggestion. Not a surprise though given the history of mankind's arrogance. Do I believe than MAN is contributing in any significant way to the change in climate? Don't know. Hope we are (as long as we are making it warmer, not colder!) If man made global warming is such a serious planet endangering process like the politicians and celebrities claim it is, then why don't the governments BAN the burning of fossil fuels? Why is their solution a carbon tax? Why is there no law saying that ALL vehicles produced must be electric powered? Answer is - there is no serious planet endangering process occuring. The global warming media frenzy is a pure money making scam. Why is that a surprise when the majority of the planet is capitalist and the driving force for everything is money. If you think politicians genuinely care about the planet you are VERY naive. They don't care about anything, only themselves. Throughout the history of the Earth, the planet's climate has been fluctuating between two dominant climate states, Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth. These two climate states last for millions of years. Greenhouse Earth = No ice caps, warm. Icehouse Earth = Ice caps, cold. Makes sense. The climate state for the Earth at present is Icehouse Earth. An Icehouse Earth is subdivided into glacial periods and interglacial periods. Glacial periods are colder, interglacial periods are warmer. The period we are in at present is interglacial. I would be more worried if it was said there was man made global cooling. Global warming may lead to the planet returning to a Greenhouse Earth climate state. Warm and no ice caps. Throughout the history of the planet, the time spent in a Greenhouse Earth state heavily outweighs the time spent in an Icehouse Earth state. Icehouse Earth is not the normal state for the Earth. I think of it as Icehouse Earth = the Earth has a cold and is sick. Greenhouse Earth = the Earth is warm and healthy. Q. What caused all the previous transitions from Greenhouse Earth to Icehouse Earth and Icehouse Earth to Greenhouse Earth? It wasn't human beings. Q. What caused all the previous transitions from glacial to interglacial and interglacial to glacial within Icehouse Earth conditions? It wasn't human beings. If the planet is warming and humans are helping, why is that bad? If we ARE helping the planet warm, this is a good thing. The planet getting warmer and returning to a Greenhouse state = Earth getting better from it's cold. I would be more worried if there was man made global cooling. I don't want to live in a snowball Earth. George Carlin “We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
Strange Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Do I believe that MAN is the main contributing factor for climate change. NO, that is a completely ridiculous suggestion. As this is a science forum, perhaps you could present the data and calculations that support that conclusion. If man made global warming is such a serious planet endangering process like the politicians and celebrities claim it is, then why don't the governments BAN the burning of fossil fuels? Because we need energy and we don't have alternatives in place yet. There are however, strict targets in place for reducing the use of fossil fuels over time. Also, although I don't agree with your more extreme characterizations of politicians, they are limited in what they can do: if they destroyed the economy by doing that, then they wouldn't get re-elected. Why is their solution a carbon tax? It is an incentive to encourage people to reduce their reliance on carbon fuels. Most politicians think it is better to encourage people rather than force them using regulation. Why is there no law saying that ALL vehicles produced must be electric powered? There are laws in various places putting very strict limits on emissions that means that it will be increasingly difficult for anything but electric or other renewable-powered vehicles to be used. Answer is - there is no serious planet endangering process occuring. Sadly, no, that is not the answer. If you think politicians genuinely care about the planet you are VERY naive.They don't care about anything, only themselves. If more of them cared about the science or the future, beyond their term of office, then they might have done something about it long ago. As it is, most are unrealistically denying the science and refusing to do anything about it. Throughout the history of the Earth, the planet's climate has been fluctuating between two dominant climate states, Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth. ... Q. What caused all the previous transitions from Greenhouse Earth to Icehouse Earth and Icehouse Earth to Greenhouse Earth? It wasn't human beings. Q. What caused all the previous transitions from glacial to interglacial and interglacial to glacial within Icehouse Earth conditions? It wasn't human beings. This argument seems to be based on a fallacy: because human activity was not responsible in the past, it can't be responsible now. There are a couple of reasons why this argument doesn't work: we know (in general) what the changes were in the past that caused those changes and know they are not the cause now; also the rate of change now is far greater than in any of those previous transitions. Anyway, maybe you should look at the science instead of listening to "politicians and celebrities".
studiot Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Strange As this is a science forum, perhaps you could present the data and calculations that support that conclusion. Sauce for the goose.................. Strange we know (in general) what the changes were in the past that caused those changes and know they are not the cause now; also the rate of change now is far greater than in any of those previous transitions. Edited January 3, 2015 by studiot
Strange Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Sauce for the goose.................. There is a large amount of evidence, from many different sources, for man-made climate change caused by increasing levels of CO2 so I'm not sure what your point is.
Tim the plumber Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) There is a large amount of evidence, from many different sources, for man-made climate change caused by increasing levels of CO2 so I'm not sure what your point is. In 1996 the IPCC published the Second Assessment Report (SAR). Of that SAR report, Frederick Seitz, former president of Rockefeller University and former president of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, wrote about the corruption of the process that led to the un-peer-reviewed changes in Chapter 8 which covered the scientific evidence. What had happened was that the scientists had approved a final version, which was supposed to go to press. But after the final approval and before the typesetting, changes were made to the text which removed any comments about doubts that climatologists might have. Seiter notes: "Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular. “The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version: • "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases." • "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes." • "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.”Frederick Seiter, A Major Deception on Global Warming Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996 source Can you find some peer reviewed paper which says catagorically that humanity is responsible for most of the observed warming since 1950? If not then ZVB's opinion is as good as yours. The link didn't work so I have found it here; http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf Edited January 3, 2015 by Tim the plumber
Strange Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Can you find some peer reviewed paper which says catagorically that ... As we are talking about science, then no. Obviously. However, the (peer reviewed) evidence is overwhelming. Google scholar shows about 2.5 million results. I'll leave you to look through them and find something that meets your needs. And as you have presented an non-peer reviewed opinion piece from a newspaper, I'll throw your request right back at you. Edited January 3, 2015 by Strange
Tim the plumber Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 As we are talking about science, then no. Obviously. However, the (peer reviewed) evidence is overwhelming. Google scholar shows about 2.5 million results. I'll leave you to look through them and find something that meets your needs. And as you have presented an non-peer reviewed opinion piece from a newspaper, I'll throw your request right back at you. Hang on, you have a claim that the observed increase in world climate temperature is due to human activity. That's the claim. You cannot show any paper which substanciates that claim. We both know that. So the claim, speaking scientifically, has no evidence and falls. There is a lot of stuff published and there are a lot of people shouting about it but so what?
iNow Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Can you find some peer reviewed paper which says catagorically that humanity is responsible for most of the observed warming since 1950? Not that any of this will matter because it's all been presented repeatedly and several times before to Tim the plumber, but: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.VKgKXk2COK0 See also: http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm
Strange Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 And there is this survey: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full.pdf&embedded=true That is ten years old now, so even more peer-reviewed papers will have been published confirming the role of human activity in increasing CO2 levels. Hang on, you have a claim that the observed increase in world climate temperature is due to human activity. And you have claimed that there are no peer-reviewed papers on the subject. This is clearly not true.
swansont Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Hang on, you have a claim that the observed increase in world climate temperature is due to human activity. That's the claim. You cannot show any paper which substanciates that claim. We both know that. So the claim, speaking scientifically, has no evidence and falls. Ah, but you've moved the goalposts. You asked for a "peer reviewed paper which says catagorically that humanity is responsible for most of the observed warming since 1950" and the response was about your requirement that it be categorical, which no science does. Now you change the conditions, and state a conclusion. I'm shocked, shocked that an intellectually dishonest argument was presented.
Tim the plumber Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 And there is this survey: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full.pdf&embedded=true That is ten years old now, so even more peer-reviewed papers will have been published confirming the role of human activity in increasing CO2 levels. Tim the plumber, on 03 Jan 2015 - 3:19 PM, said: Hang on, you have a claim that the observed increase in world climate temperature is due to human activity. And you have claimed that there are no peer-reviewed papers on the subject. This is clearly not true. On the subject certainly. I am asking for demonstratinmg that human cativity has been the cause fo increased temperature. Significanat influence will do. Can you find some peer reviewed paper which says catagorically that humanity is responsible for most of the observed warming since 1950? I don't think that is a very high bar to cross. I'll even lower it and say that a high certainty level will help a lot.
Tim the plumber Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Troll So when a person posts the reasons why they are a glonbal warming skeptic on a thread asking for that and is challenged to provide evidence for a negative argument, you say that it is wrong of me to point out that the posative claim is the one which requires the substanciation. Generally in most science whatever you say is regarded as drivel unless you can back it up. Generally that's how science works. Does it work like that here? Oh, and sock pupet?? I don't know I would ask the mods to look into it but..... Edited January 3, 2015 by Tim the plumber
iNow Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 So when a person posts the reasons why they are a glonbal warming skeptic on a thread asking for that and is challenged to provide evidence for a negative argument, you say that it is wrong of me to point out that the posative claim is the one which requires the substanciation.The requested substantiation has repeatedly and overwhelmingly been provided, including right within the three posts immediately preceding your own. Simply pretending it's not there or that it has not been offered does nothing to negate either its existence or its validity. What that behavior does do, however, is to show that you are not approaching the discussion in good faith, debating with intellectually honest points, or doing anything more than trumpeting more climate denier nonsense.... All of which I previously described succinctly with the term "troll," 1
Ten oz Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 So when a person posts the reasons why they are a glonbal warming skeptic on a thread asking for that and is challenged to provide evidence for a negative argument, you say that it is wrong of me to point out that the posative claim is the one which requires the substanciation. Generally in most science whatever you say is regarded as drivel unless you can back it up. Generally that's how science works. Does it work like that here? Oh, and sock pupet?? I don't know I would ask the mods to look into it but..... Figures don't lie but lairs can figure. NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and every other meaningful organization in the world that actually performs climate research agrees that man is impacting the earths climates. NOAA has actual personel out in he middle of the ocean taking readings, NASA has satellites messuring the whole planet, and so on. Thus far you have present nothing that counters their finding. Just petty arguments over the definition of theory vs categorical fact.
Arete Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Significanat influence will do. Here's a categorized list of over 1350 peer reviewed publications supporting the mainstream scientific view on anthropgenic global warming - will it do? http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Tim the plumber Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Here's a categorized list of over 1350 peer reviewed publications supporting the mainstream scientific view on anthropgenic global warming - will it do? http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Do any of them explain that the influence of human activity is very highly likely responsible for at least 50 % of the observed warming since 1950? That would need to be above 99% chance. Personally I think that is a low level of challenge.
Strange Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Here's a categorized list of over 1350 peer reviewed publications supporting the mainstream scientific view on anthropgenic global warming - will it do? http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Are you sure? It appears to be the opposite. Edited January 3, 2015 by Strange 2
ZVBXRPL Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 As this is a science forum, perhaps you could present the data and calculations that support that conclusion. Because we need energy and we don't have alternatives in place yet. There are however, strict targets in place for reducing the use of fossil fuels over time. Also, although I don't agree with your more extreme characterizations of politicians, they are limited in what they can do: if they destroyed the economy by doing that, then they wouldn't get re-elected. It is an incentive to encourage people to reduce their reliance on carbon fuels. Most politicians think it is better to encourage people rather than force them using regulation. There are laws in various places putting very strict limits on emissions that means that it will be increasingly difficult for anything but electric or other renewable-powered vehicles to be used. Sadly, no, that is not the answer. If more of them cared about the science or the future, beyond their term of office, then they might have done something about it long ago. As it is, most are unrealistically denying the science and refusing to do anything about it. This argument seems to be based on a fallacy: because human activity was not responsible in the past, it can't be responsible now. There are a couple of reasons why this argument doesn't work: we know (in general) what the changes were in the past that caused those changes and know they are not the cause now; also the rate of change now is far greater than in any of those previous transitions. Anyway, maybe you should look at the science instead of listening to "politicians and celebrities". Throughout the history of the Earth, the planet's climate has been fluctuating between two dominant climate states, Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth. These two climate states last for millions of years. Greenhouse Earth = No ice caps, warm. Icehouse Earth = Ice caps, cold. Makes sense. The climate state for the Earth at present is Icehouse Earth. An Icehouse Earth is subdivided into glacial periods and interglacial periods. Glacial periods are colder, interglacial periods are warmer. The period we are in at present is interglacial. What evidence do YOU have that the Earth is no longer fluctuating naturally between Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth? My argument is perfectly valid. Your argument is one of politicians and spin doctors The government doesn't care one little bit about the planet, it doesn't even care about the people living on the planet, what it DOES care about is MONEY. Do you really believe the same people who are responsible for slaughtering millions of people, care about the planet?
Recommended Posts