Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

New climate change studies


Daffodil

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
10 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

If you think I am irritating, you should see me when I deal with Christians who want to argue.  

 

That would actually be interesting - I'd like to see that. Take a video of yourself next time with a Christian? :) 

 

*Sigh* I want to answer the rest of your post there but I can't, I just don't want to go there sorry. Judging from your post BO, it is truly pointless having a discussion with you (On CC/GW) simply because if you distrust science that much, then you will disregard everything I can and would say. Its sad because you do raise valid questions, but close yourself off to potential answers.

 

For the record I'm not a true believer in the sense I think you are meaning. I can see problems with the science of this topic, but I can also see the validity of many of its findings. But I don't distrust science so much that I think that "Theories in science are just like prayers in religion".

 

Cheers, and look I sincerely hope you are right about climate change, I do. But I also would like for their to be some happy afterlife where I see my Grandmother again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know I think this is another one of those issues that could  easily resolved with the thought that.... I think it was shinobi posted with the square, circle, and triangle. We all three have different opinions which we perceive as truth. And it's likely that somewhere in amongst all three there is truth. ?

 

DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It didn't even occur to me to post this in the science forum.  If the mods would like to move it there, that would be fine by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted your video on LF s thread on climate change just a lil while ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
3 minutes ago, Daffodil said:

It didn't even occur to me to post this in the science forum.  If the mods would like to move it there, that would be fine by me.

 

This topic has already gone political (I'll slap both BO and myself for that) so I doubt mods would move it. That's why apart from posting news articles and videos here I don't get down and serious.

 

DB has posted in the science forum and I will respond accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
13 hours ago, Daffodil said:

It didn't even occur to me to post this in the science forum.  If the mods would like to move it there, that would be fine by me.

Thy will be done! It might be nice to see reasonable, fact based discussion on this topic in a forum where the flinging of feces just for kicks is NOT permitted. Enjoy, serious posters!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Oh hail mighty florduh. We love thee forever and ever and ever and... you get the point!

 

Will answer BO's questions tonight where I can put forth a post worthy of the science forum.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 3/29/2017 at 10:53 AM, Burnedout said:

If you are so sure about your position then why not answer these questions?  Instead, you just side step them by saying they can't be anwered.  It doesn't matter what I believe. You are claiming an affirmative.  

 

1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.

2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.

3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.

4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.

5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.

6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the North and South poles.

7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.

 8. Define how much has humans affected the climate.

 

:)

 

To clarify, I am not "so sure of my position" in the manner which you say. Reading though my posts in the other climate change thread will highlight my position rather than a strawman of my position.

 

I think, in regards to discussing climate change, (Which we are really talking about warming) the first six are malformed questions. Let me explain: There is the assumption within the questions that there either is a "correct" value for each of the criteria, or that if there is no correct value and therefore somehow all other evidence can be dismissed.

 

1-6) So, for questions 1-6, with no other reference, it cannot be said there is an absolute correct value for any of the criteria. However we can can define a "correct" set of values based on a reference point, and I'd define that as the values that allow humans to thrive. Too hot and we die, too cold and we die. Same with all other factors. We could say, for example, that an average temperature of 18-20 degrees C is good. However 25-30 degrees may result is massive areas of land becoming uninhabitable. Thus we can predict that if the planet warms by X, then certain things could happen. We know this is new science, and that predictions are often not met in certain areas. However, some predictions have been exceeded. Estimates of warming are revised as new data comes in.

 

7) Per my opening post over in Climate change, it is well known that the earth warms and cools by itself. I have never denied that, and totally agree with it. Remember that the idea is not humans have induced global warming, but are exacerbating natural increases in temperature.

 

8) Near impossible to answer, but you know that, which is why you are asking it. Daffodils posted video talks of problems in establishing an initial baseline with which to measure our effect on climate. It's not as easy to measure as say, acid rain from coal power plants. I will have to do some more research into this particular topic to see if they have found a way to measure the human impact apart from the natural warming. We do know that CO2 levels have risen in the last 70 odd years which of course in claimed as a major driver in the planet warming. Problems with this include the fact that CO2 makes up a very small portion of the atmosphere. However its possible that increases in even the small portion is enough to exacerbate warming. Currently scientists are trying to work out a more confident estimate of the potential warming, but the most recent estimates are for 2.7 - 8.1 degrees F if the CO2 levels double their pre industrial levels (Pre industrial levels is about 275ppm). CO2 levels are rising and are expected, at current rates, to reach double pre-industrial levels in around 50 years. These estimates depend greatly on climate sensitivity - that is how sensitive is the climate to increased CO2 levels. If it has high sensitivity then doubling the CO2 could be very very bad. If it has low sensitivity then the effect of doubling the CO2 will be indistinguishable from natural temperature rises. Part of what goes into determining how sensitive the climate is, is the relationship between aerosol pollutants which cool the climate, and CO2 which results in warming. If the cooling effect of the aerosols was large, then the CO2 levels account for a greater portion of warming. If the aerosol effect was small then the CO2 levels account for less and other factors to explain the rise in temperature are needed.

 

However despite the obvious difficulty of getting any precise answers in this discussion, I am confounded as to how any admission of the difficulty of defining a precise correct value in any way refutes evidence that the globe is warming. At best you can say, well there is no correct value, hence any attempts at slowing human input to warming is pointless. Even with that kind of thinking you still haven't refuted temperature rise. I think its clear from discussions here and in the other thread that there is a real difficulty for scientists to show exactly how much humans have actually contributed.

 

So I would ask you BO: Take aside all discussion of whether humans have had any impact on the planet at all, and ignore all dire predictions. Do you concur that global temperatures are rising? I'm asking because you have posted graphs showing the opposite which contradicts all information I have come across, even from those who are skeptical of human impact. (Hence me asking for your sources)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Quote

Basically, my contention is that no matter which narrative, SOMEBODY has something to gain.  The most dangerous ones are the ones that try to influence government to make me and everybody else give up freedom, money, and even possibly my life.  That can be a politician who tries to push legislation or something else for his gain or his backer's gain, a clergyman who uses a narrative to keep the flock giving their fleece (money) and a ready supply of children to molest, a business man who may try to sell something that has serious, possibly even dangerous flaws, a scientist/s who will give in to fudging data or using confirmation bias of their own for gain in career, tenure, etc, and getting in bed with politicians. 

No doubt vested interests have agendas they put forth. Accepting that as fact, does it not make sense that those with the most to gain and maintain are NOT the fledgling "green industry" but rather the largest, richest, most established and vested interest? Of course there is money to be made from fearing climate change, but there is more to be made and much more to protect by those denying it; the fossil fuel industry. After all, they do have a clear record of fudging numbers and hiding facts from the public that predates politicizing climate science by decades.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
6 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

As I see it, the elephants are fighting and those of us who are small animals in that jungle, our first priority is to not get stepped on by them. 

No, there's an elephant and an elephant wannabee. 

 

The point is, there either IS or there IS NOT human contribution to the warming. Which animal has the most to gain or lose and is therefore more likely to lie about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I cannot contribute anything by way of an opinion on the issue and while I cannot cite any information relating to the topic of climate change, I do feel that it's worth examining what we mean by skepticism and cynicism.

 

Is a skeptic an open-minded person who can be persuaded by facts?

 

Is a cynic an open-minded person who can be persuaded by facts?

 

Food for thought.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
6 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

While I cannot contribute anything by way of an opinion on the issue and while I cannot cite any information relating to the topic of climate change, I do feel that it's worth examining what we mean by skepticism and cynicism.

 

Is a skeptic an open-minded person who can be persuaded by facts?

 

Is a cynic an open-minded person who can be persuaded by facts?

 

Food for thought.

 

 

By definition, a "cynic" has his mind made up in that he will trust no new information due to his mistrust of humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, florduh said:

By definition, a "cynic" has his mind made up in that he will trust no new information due to his mistrust of humanity.

 

If that's so florduh, may I ask how you square it with something you wrote yesterday?

 

In response to LF's request you moved this thread here, saying...

Thy will be done! It might be nice to see reasonable, fact based discussion on this topic in a forum where the flinging of feces just for kicks is NOT permitted. Enjoy, serious posters!

 

Can a cynic (as per your definition) participate in a serious and reasonable, fact based discussion?

 

If so, how?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Quote

 

Can a cynic (as per your definition) participate in a serious and reasonable, fact based discussion?

 

If so, how?

 

 

A cynic can try if they want to. I don't expect anyone to change the mind of a true cynic, but at least there shall be no mindless flinging of feces here.

 

I just reasoned that if a cynic essentially believes there is no such thing as honesty or altruism and therefore can trust no one, then his mind is closed to essentially all new information - after all, it might just be someone's self serving lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
5 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

LF,

I will answer your question, but be warned.  My cynicism will show very much.  This is not meant to be an attack on you or any individual, but rather my cynicism towards the popular narratives. 

 

Are temperatures rising?  If the information is to be believed, temperatures rise sometimes from year to year, decade to decade, perhaps century to century, maybe millenium to millenium, possibly even million years to million years. Have they fallen in that time?  If the information presented is correct, YES. Those graphs I simply pulled off of google as a means of making fun of the narratives, REALLY.  

 

The only difference is that the popular one is backed by most of the media and large sums of money from people who stand to benefit from it and who influence the government that way.   Thus, if what is said matches with what I see with my own eyes, then I am likely to believe it, if not, nope.  That is why I cited my own experience with Fort Pickens in the other thread. 

 

Basically, my contention is that no matter which narrative, SOMEBODY has something to gain.  The most dangerous ones are the ones that try to influence government to make me and everybody else give up freedom, money, and even possibly my life.  That can be a politician who tries to push legislation or something else for his gain or his backer's gain, a clergyman who uses a narrative to keep the flock giving their fleece (money) and a ready supply of children to molest, a business man who may try to sell something that has serious, possibly even dangerous flaws, a scientist/s who will give in to fudging data or using confirmation bias of their own for gain in career, tenure, etc, and getting in bed with politicians.  

 

We can show vested interests on the scientists side who are receiving money from Government, and we can show vested interests for the ones most affected by any policies to curb warming: Oil, fossil fuels, big factory business etc. We agree on this?

 

So BO, your honest position on this topic would be completely neutral, as I think we can both agree there are vested interests and BIG money on all sides? Thus you cannot trust anybody, thus you are natural?

 

So I take it your thoughts are: let people make up their minds, there should be no agendas, and once we actually see any effects (Lets say fort Pickens gets flooded) then it is time to act as necessary?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

So..... IS or IS NOT? To simply assume both sides of any issue are lying just says you either don't want to do the homework, or you did but don't like the result. IS or IS NOT? 

 

Many people have posted tons of data from scientists around the world. A few will post only data or conclusions from the outliers who, for reasons of their own, go against the other 97%. Where does the preponderance of evidence lie? I could see the topic up for discussion if maybe three fourths were agreed, but it's 97%.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, florduh said:

So..... IS or IS NOT? To simply assume both sides of any issue are lying just says you either don't want to do the homework, or you did but don't like the result. IS or IS NOT? 

 

Many people have posted tons of data from scientists around the world. A few will post only data or conclusions from the outliers who, for reasons of their own, go against the other 97%. Where does the preponderance of evidence lie? I could see the topic up for discussion if maybe three fourths were agreed, but it's 97%.

 

He states that issue to start off with. He doesn't know any scientists that deny that humans are having an impact which is where the 97% statistic comes from according to him. But there are scientists that argue whether or not it is the primary reason for global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Quote

But there are scientists that argue whether or not it is the primary reason for global warming.

That call is up for one's interpretation and crystal ball. While possibly not the primary cause, it is rather universally agreed that it is a contributing factor to some degree. It is the only factor we could do anything about, so the logic would be, do something.

 

Hell, it's taken years for many to even admit warming is happening at all. And there are still some holdouts on even that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
14 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

If I were a Star Wars character, I would probably be Han Solo.  Han does not believe in "The Force".  He said he just needs a good blaster.  He also, at least in the original movie, when meeting with the character Greedo, shot first.  I would have too.  He was friends with Luke and all the rest, but he really trusted himself. 

 

Problem with your analogy is that in that universe the Force was real and demonstrable. Han later admitted this:

 

"Rey: [in awe] The Jedi were real?

Han: I used to wonder about that myself. Thought it was a bunch of mumbo jumbo. A magical power holding together good and evil, the Dark Side and the Light. Crazy thing is...it's true. The Force, the Jedi. All of it. It's all true."

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
20 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

Data, or carefully selected, cherry picked data that is allowed to be brought forward?  The Pope in the Middle ages made sure that only evidence for a flat earth was presented.  Lies can be printed, spoken, and electronically produced.  With enough money, they can go big.  Ever remember a little fellow by the name of Joseph Goebbels? 

 

Is this true scepticism or cynicism?

 

You are equating scientists who support climate change with religious adherents, creationists, and war mongering propaganda.

 

I recognise that there are factors that unfortunately may work to influence scientists, but I also believe they do their best to present true science.

 

What is interesting here is the conversation is not about presenting data and reasons why GW is wrong, but why scientists might have corrupted data etc. This is similar to tactics employed by creationists in evolution debates. So far any claim against data manipulation has been refuted, or data has been corrected - and its still shows the same result. I posted a video refuting the latest claim of data manipulation - it wasn't even manipulation, the scientist didn't disclose some information, but the results of the study were not affected.

 

24 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

But there is also a difference.  That was a movie.  This is real life. Movie characters are not real people, merely characature acted by actors. 

 

So your point about being like Han Solo was pointless then wasn't it.

 

You are not like Han Solo, you are simply cynical.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
17 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

Data, or carefully selected, cherry picked data that is allowed to be brought forward?  The Pope in the Middle ages made sure that only evidence for a flat earth was presented.  Lies can be printed, spoken, and electronically produced.  With enough money, they can go big.  Ever remember a little fellow by the name of Joseph Goebbels? 

So conspiracy theory it is. 97% of the entire world's scientific community is in cahoots with Al Gore. Makes perfect sense.

 

I'm tired, but maybe someone can post some more data collected from places where Goebbels has no influence. Not that it would be believed or anything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
11 minutes ago, florduh said:

So conspiracy theory it is. 97% of the entire world's scientific community is in cahoots with Al Gore. Makes perfect sense.

 

I'm tired, but maybe someone can post some more data collected from places where Goebbels has no influence. Not that it would be believed or anything...

 

We have previously determined that 1) BO is an "unadulterated cynic" (His own words), 2) He will not trust any data from any source we can provide (By his own admission), even when it agrees with sources he agrees with.

 

I knew this was the case, but felt that for the audience it was worthwhile answering his 8 questions as best and honestly as I could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
21 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

It appears that many trust the scientific method, but have failed one important part...OBSERVATION.   MY OBSERVATION of the water not far frome me has not matched up with the narrative.  When I see the water over taking the island that Fort Pickens is on, then I may change my mind.  But until then, NOPE. 

 

"MY OBSERVATION of the water not far frome me has not matched up with the narrative" I believe BAA covered this with you at length.

 

Have you seen the earth from space? If not how do you know it is a sphere? You haven't seen the whole sphere with your own eyes. In fact your eyes tell you the planet is flat.

 

Can you unequivocally state with your eyes, that average water levels at Fort Pickens have not risen in the last 50 years? If you can then your eyes are better than any know measuring tool and you should hire out your extraordinary services that provide 100% accurate information. You could earn BIG money.

 

Regarding the video link you posted - again it mentions many factors Randell does, factors already agreed on. Again (I might be mistaken) I believe the current consensus is that humans are influencing climate, not inducing it. There may have been early claims of inducement, but they have been proven wrong, and as science does it corrects its mistakes.

 

Regarding observation: Ice melting off the Arctic. IF you were able to time travel in a space capsule, you would see the ice decreasing. It has been pictured, the rate of loss can be measured in much the same way gain in Antarctic sea ice can be measured. Thus our eyes can tell us what is happening, and we can observe it. What you should do when you don't see Fort Pickens flooded, is not dismiss the theory, but ask, Why, if the theory is correct and makes x predictions, is the sea level apparently not rising at Fort Pickens. That will lead you to seek answers that may explain "why". That is the sceptical scientific way, as opposed to being cynical and saying "I don't see it, therefore I don't believe it".

 

21 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Lets look at this from another angle.  Do you believe there is a mythical creature say...Big Foot?  You've never seen it, yet there are people who claim they have.  Do you believe them?  Now, what if you did see old Big Foot.  Let's say you were out on the forest, and you stumbled onto the creature.  He was say..9 feet tall (close to three meters), very hairy, stunk worse than a skunk, you looked him in the eye.  Would you believe your eyes if you did see him, no matter if everybody thought you were crazy?  My guess is YES, you would.  Now, the reverse can be true.  There can be people telling you something exists yet there is no visible evidence.  Do you believe it exists simply because they tell you it does?  

 

No, there is no solid evidence of Big Foot or God.... for the same reasons. If I saw a creature like that, that had not been previously reported I would assume my senses were deceiving me. Because I am aware of how my brain works I am justified in thinking it more likely that I am deceived, than that I am actually witnessing a creature no one has ever seen. Are you sure your creature is not just a bear?

 

Regarding believing what I am told: Not simply because they tell me, although in regards to God yes I did. I believe something exists because I look at the data, the arguments for and against, and conclude that the arguments for are stronger (If we are talking about a positive claim). In areas where a further claim is made (CO2 is a major driver) I maintain my scepticism until a stronger link can be found, or disproven, while still acknowledging that the planet is warming, and if it continues to do so there will be consequences that we need to think about mitigating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
29 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

When the apocalyptical pronouncements were made saying NY City was going to be underwater by Year 2000, that there would be more hurricanes and they would be far more severe, that the weather would be way worse than it actually was, then I hold anything the so-called experts say in contempt.  It sounds just like the revival preachers who preach DA TRIBULATION IS COMING and it never does.  The record of both is about the same.  NY City is still on dry land and busy as ever, Fort Pickens is still a popular local historical site with a camp ground that is still operating as it always has been.  Compare me to a Christian, look in the mirror.  Both have the same record in the apocalypse business. 

 

I think you might be committing a false equivalency fallacy with that last post BO.

 

So what you are saying, is that if a scientist looks at his data, makes a prediction, and it misses the mark (rather widely in your example) said scientist doesn't get a chance to correct, to gather more data and refine the theory, we just toss him on the heap with apocalyptic Christians despite the evidence that something is happening? Ice is melting, sea level is rising, (So is land levels incidentally) temperatures are warming. What's causing it? A complex set of factors including you and I... and florduh and 7 billion other humans.

 

Like I say, comparing apocalyptic nutbags to failed scientific predictions is false equivalency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Perhaps, I hope not. Despite my name I try and avoid logical fallacies. Perhaps someone more familiar with fallacies can correct if I misused false equivalency, and give an opinion on whether we are committing the fallacies of appeals to consensus and authority. It should be noted that simply because you do use consensus or authority doesn't necessarily mean a fallacy has been committed. Same with equivalency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.