Philosophy Discussion Forums

Aemun wrote:DarwinX, you seem to be coming under a lot of pressure here.

I wish to make a suggestion.

First tell us what you think makes the difference between a creditable science source and a non-creditable science source.

Then maybe we can see where our views fundamentally disagree. I would avoid sounding ideological, just tell us what you think would be sensible measures to take when researching sources.

OK

I have given you 4 credible pieces of evidence that global warming is not occurring and you have ignored all four of them. I will repeat the four pieces of evidence. You have a golden opportunity to prove that any one of the four pieces of evidence are false. If you can't prove that all four pieces of evidence are all completely false, then your argument is just a lot of hot air, excuse the pun.

1. Infra-red radiation does not cause global warming. Experimental evidence provided previously. (ignored)

2. 30 years of NASA satellite images of North Pole show no sign of significant change. (ignored)

3. Global average temperatures have decreased in last 17 years. Graphs included. (ignored)

4. North Pole ice has returned to its average norm this year, 2013. (ignored)

The point that Xris makes is one that needs to be answered also. I have been reading sources by you DarwinX that try to show the mechanism for how the Sun and cosmic rays affect temperatures but with no evidence that they are the most significant cause.

Indeed now you are saying there is no warming but it is caused by the Sun. The not warming is caused by the Sun?

You need to have some sort of coherent opinion.

But answer my previous question too.

-- Updated September 1st, 2013, 8:08 pm to add the following --

I have already spoken about no warming for 17 years. You ignored me.

I have talked about other sources and you have ignored me also.

It is not my job to discuss every piece of **** piece of evidence you put up if you can't be bothered to respond to evidence I have spoken about.

The pressure is on you to answer questions.

Now go back and answer Xris, then go on and tell me how you tell a good source from a bad source.

For example, should it be done by scientists? Should it be referenced?

Answer the bloody questions.

Aemun wrote:The point that Xris makes is one that needs to be answered also. I have been reading sources by you DarwinX that try to show the mechanism for how the Sun and cosmic rays affect temperatures but with no evidence that they are the most significant cause.

Well, what percentage did you come up with? If you don't know how much the sun cycles influence the climate, then you are in the same boat as the IPCC because they don't even take the sun into consideration at all. They have completely ignored the existence of the sun in all their thousands of pages of climate analysis. They take the religious point of view "that the Earth and sun are constants and never change."

Indeed now you are saying there is no warming but it is caused by the Sun. The not warming is caused by the Sun?

You need to have some sort of coherent opinion.

The sun cycles create variation in the sun's output which causes an increase or decrease in cosmic ray penetration as shown by the CERN CLOUD experiments.(ignored previously)

But answer my previous question too.

-- Updated September 1st, 2013, 8:08 pm to add the following --

I have already spoken about no warming for 17 years. You ignored me.

The temperature has deceased in the last 17 years. You ignored my graph which showed this previously.

I have talked about other sources and you have ignored me also.

It is not my job to discuss every piece of **** piece of evidence you put up if you can't be bothered to respond to evidence I have spoken about.

The pressure is on you to answer questions.

Now go back and answer Xris, then go on and tell me how you tell a good source from a bad source.

For example, should it be done by scientists? Should it be referenced?

Answer the bloody questions.

The scientists and their peer review system have proven unreliable. I have been investigating many scientific issues over the last 10 years and have found that corruption and deception are endemic in the area of scientific research. I only trust my own scientific knowledge and use logic and experience to determine which science is rubbish and which is real. I am trying to educate you on this matter, but your conservative nature doesn't allow you to see corruption in high places. You blindly believe your masters, which is a natural survival instinct. In the past, it served man well to blindly follow their leader. Survival sometimes depends on trust, sometimes that trust can be abused. In modern times, deception is the name of the game.

Good diversion, but the four questions still remain unanswered.

DarwinX

You have a golden opportunity to prove that any one of the four pieces of evidence are false.

1. Infra-red radiation does not cause global warming. Experimental evidence provided previously. (ignored)

This is ignored because answering would involve educating you in the absolute basics and it is just too tedious. Start by reading something on 'the greenhouse effect'.

2. 30 years of NASA satellite images of North Pole show no sign of significant change. (ignored)

See 4.

3. Global average temperatures have decreased in last 17 years. Graphs included. (ignored)

No they haven't. The trend line continues to rise, although less fast. Remember, every year of the period you quote - even the coolest ones - are hotter than anything seen before the 1980s.

Besides, if you think the measurements for the last 17 years are accurate, you can hardly rubbish those other measurements that do show a steady rise. So you must admit global warming has occured.

Which leaves you with the problem of looking for an alternative explanation for the warming than the obvious one i.e. the increase in greenhouse gases. (nb sun cycles don't fit)

4. North Pole ice has returned to its average norm this year, 2013. (ignored)

No, this year looks like being well below average although within the long term mean. Last year, minimum sea ice cover was a record low, 18% below the previous record low. We don't have the equivalent figure for 2013 yet (minimum ice is in September).

I suspect this is another version of 3. If this year's figure fails to also be a record you will claim the trend is over, even though the figure is still a record compared to earlier years.

Incidentally, it isn't just the edges of the ice cover that is important. In some years the ice will thin and spread, so it covers a large area but has holes.

Here is a website that explains:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

But once again, I detect a creeping failure of confidence. First you challenged us to prove any one of your examples is false, then you immediately shifted to:

If you can't prove that all four pieces of evidence are all completely false...

Now you don't have to be on the philosophy boards long to be aware that you can't prove a negative, and recognise that this is always the last-ditch defence of a faith based system:

'You can't prove God didn't create the world in 4004BC'

The only response is 'No, I can't prove it to you, but the reason I can't is because your beliefs are not founded on evidence or reason'

The sun cycles create variation in the sun's output which causes an increase or decrease in cosmic ray penetration as shown by the CERN CLOUD experiments

DarwinX as said before to you, in no way does the CERN CLOUD website or any of their publications suggest this is the most significant factor in climate change on the Earth,let alone the most significant factor in the current trend. In fact you previously supplied another link which stated as much.

How can you have an argument when the links you supply do not even back up what you are saying? You've done this when you said BP funded Greenpeace. If you must reject all scientists apart from yourself then I suggest you learn to read your source material.

And by the way, the scientists you provide don't even supply a method most of the time so how the hell you know the science I do not know. Also how can you understand the science when it is new research and they are inventing new methods? You have to have some objective method of being able to trust them, are you a doctor in ecology or meteorology or particle physics?

I'll resupply your own link so that you can reread it:

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/People/Publications.html

Londoner wrote:

This is ignored because answering would involve educating you in the absolute basics and it is just too tedious. Start by reading something on 'the greenhouse effect'.

You have obviously just joined this discussion and have missed all the previous preamble which discussed this issue in depth. If you are too lazy to explain yourself and to check previous posts, then don't bother commenting. I already understand the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, the IPCC scientists don't have a clue what the greenhouse effect is. They believe that CO2 is responsible for creating a greenhouse effect, but unfortunately CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the greenhouse effect. In fact, a greenhouse uses heat trapped by glass. Its as simple as that. CO2 has nothing to do with it. The term 'greenhouse', doesn't apply to an open system, such as you find around the Earth. Thus, the terminology of the IPCC is wrong right from the start. Note - The properties of CO2 are not conducive to creating a greenhouse effect anyway. I have studied the properties of CO2 have you?

2. 30 years of NASA satellite images of North Pole show no sign of significant change. (ignored)

See 4.[/quote]

Yeah? I seen 4 and there is no reference to the 30 years period?

3. Global average temperatures have decreased in last 17 years. Graphs included. (ignored)

No they haven't. The trend line continues to rise, although less fast. Remember, every year of the period you quote - even the coolest ones - are hotter than anything seen before the 1980s.

Besides, if you think the measurements for the last 17 years are accurate, you can hardly rubbish those other measurements that do show a steady rise. So you must admit global warming has occured.

Which leaves you with the problem of looking for an alternative explanation for the warming than the obvious one i.e. the increase in greenhouse gases. (nb sun cycles don't fit)

If you draw a mean average line through the temperature graph of the last 17 years it descends, it definitely doesn't rise. Therefore, the trend for the last 17 years is a decrease and not an increase. Point proven! Next please!


(Nested quote removed.)

The fact remains that the ice has increased in the last year. It is now within the mean long term average. Thus, technically speaking, it can't be said that the ice is retreating or acting abnormally. It is within the mean long term average which goes back hundreds of years. Therefore, all is normal and nothing of any significance has occurred. Not enough, that is, to warrant spending billions of dollars on useless research and taxing everybody on the planet into oblivion.

DarwinX, I think what he means by Earth's natural greenhouse effect (not a phrase to be taken literally, like a glass greenhouse) is that the CO2 released and sits in the lower atmosphere. Sunlight will come in and not be able to get out due to the CO2, thus causing the aforementioned greenhouse effect.

At least that's how I think he means it. It's sort of a metaphor.

Now, why this happens (ie how the heat manages to get through and then not be able to escape), I don't know. Gravity, maybe?

Aemun wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


DarwinX as said before to you, in no way does the CERN CLOUD website or any of their publications suggest this is the most significant factor in climate change on the Earth,let alone the most significant factor in the current trend. In fact you previously supplied another link which stated as much.

How can you have an argument when the links you supply do not even back up what you are saying? You've done this when you said BP funded Greenpeace. If you must reject all scientists apart from yourself then I suggest you learn to read your source material.

And by the way, the scientists you provide don't even supply a method most of the time so how the hell you know the science I do not know. Also how can you understand the science when it is new research and they are inventing new methods? You have to have some objective method of being able to trust them, are you a doctor in ecology or meteorology or particle physics?

The following link shows that rising CO2 levels comes after temperature rises by an average time delay of 800 years. This is because the oceans take approximately 800 years to warm up. Thus, as I explained previously, the Earth acts like a thermostat, which uses the ocean to capture warm air and sunlight.


http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming ... ore-graph/

The greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 molecules trapping more heat in the atmosphere than other molecules. So heat from the Sun eventually builds up in the atmosphere over time. They trap the heat in the 1carbon and 2oxygen atoms. So it's not to do with convection or thermal movements. The light hits atoms and occasionally gets absorbed in all atoms, but we are changing the atom composition. CO2 forms part of the atmosphere so the heat stays in the atoms in the system.

It's easier to imagine pouring water through a funnel filled with various things, rocks, sand, etc. If you started adding bits of sponge to the funnel then you would expect the water to get absorbed in the sponge and the water would leave the funnel slower.

The greenhouse metaphor is not brilliant for understanding it. But the fact that CO2 has such absorbent properties with light has been known for over one hundred years. That is why more extreme weather conditions are expected, because the molecules in the atmosphere are gaining energy. NASA knows about this.

Which is why I think DarwinX is confused.

-- Updated September 2nd, 2013, 9:57 am to add the following --

And you will get no where by ignoring everything I say and simply posting another dubious link. DarwinX, your actions really are pathetic, I wish you'd grow up.

Leonodas wrote:DarwinX, I think what he means by Earth's natural greenhouse effect (not a phrase to be taken literally, like a glass greenhouse) is that the CO2 released and sits in the lower atmosphere. Sunlight will come in and not be able to get out due to the CO2, thus causing the aforementioned greenhouse effect.

At least that's how I think he means it. It's sort of a metaphor.

Now, why this happens (ie how the heat manages to get through and then not be able to escape), I don't know. Gravity, maybe?

Your right in being confused. Even the scientists don't no how it works, because the whole idea of climate change was backwards engineered. They first arrived at a conclusion that they wanted, then they just made up some convincingly sounding science to fit their conclusions. That's how most things happen in the crazy world of science.

DarwinX

You have obviously just joined this discussion and have missed all the previous preamble which discussed this issue in depth. If you are too lazy to explain yourself and to check previous posts, then don't bother commenting. I already understand the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, the IPCC scientists don't have a clue what the greenhouse effect is.

Seriously, so the IPCC have no idea what the greenhouse effect is? All those scientists, all those qualifications, but you know better because you have skim read some sceptic websites?

They believe that CO2 is responsible for creating a greenhouse effect, but unfortunately CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the greenhouse effect. In fact, a greenhouse uses heat trapped by glass.

Silly. They call it the 'greenhouse effect' because it creates a hothouse, not because they think the earth is surrounded by glass.

Now if you had taken my advice and done some reading you would have known that.

Note - The properties of CO2 are not conducive to creating a greenhouse effect anyway. I have studied the properties of CO2 have you?

Don't try to bluff me! You haven't studied anything. Google 'greenhouse gas' and come back when you have read what you find.

The fact remains that the ice has increased in the last year. It is now within the mean long term average. Thus, technically speaking,...

Technically speaking? What you are probably attempting to say is that it remains within two deviations of the long term mean. That is something different from the 'average'.

But why believe me? You quote NASA figures to support your view, so you presumably trust NASA. So what do NASA say?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... -2013.html

Aemun wrote:The greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 molecules trapping more heat in the atmosphere than other molecules. So heat from the Sun eventually builds up in the atmosphere over time. They trap the heat in the 1carbon and 2oxygen atoms. So it's not to do with convection or thermal movements. The light hits atoms and occasionally gets absorbed in all atoms, but we are changing the atom composition. CO2 forms part of the atmosphere so the heat stays in the atoms in the system.

It's easier to imagine pouring water through a funnel filled with various things, rocks, sand, etc. If you started adding bits of sponge to the funnel then you would expect the water to get absorbed in the sponge and the water would leave the funnel slower.

The greenhouse metaphor is not brilliant for understanding it. But the fact that CO2 has such absorbent properties with light has been known for over one hundred years. That is why more extreme weather conditions are expected, because the molecules in the atmosphere are gaining energy. NASA knows about this.

Which is why I think DarwinX is confused.

-- Updated September 2nd, 2013, 9:57 am to add the following --

And you will get no where by ignoring everything I say and simply posting another dubious link. DarwinX, your actions really are pathetic, I wish you'd grow up.

Your understanding of CO2 is childish. What do you know about the exponential refractive qualities of CO2 in relation to its density using a laser beam? Nothing I'll bet! Your well out of your depth on this issue.

Londoner wrote: Technically speaking? What you are probably attempting to say is that it remains within two deviations of the long term mean. That is something different from the 'average'.

But why believe me? You quote NASA figures to support your view, so you presumably trust NASA. So what do NASA say?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... -2013.html

Their records only go back 40 years which is a pathetically short period of time in which to decide that the Earth is doing anything peculiar. Thus, it is not credible or scientific at this stage to say anything that would suggest that a catastrophic or disastrous occurrence has occurred. The whole matter is over-blown and put out of proportion by a bunch of hyped-up, drug taking scientists, who want to be considered as important people. Thus, it is just a power and money grabbing exercise which will ultimately lead to nowhere, but will create a huge waste of time and money.

Note - A similar scenario occurred in the 70's when the scientists created a scare that we were entering an ice age because of CFC's and a hole in the ozone layer. It was later found out that CFC's had nothing to do with the climate change and the matter dropped off the radar soon after.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climat ... utton.html

This is something the kids say but at 32 years old I have reserved it for a moment like this:

OMFG!

DarwinX ,you have been consistently using NASA photos of the past 30 years as one of your main, if not your main argument in this debate.

Now you have been shown actual footage from the actual NASA website that shows that the ice is slowly melting.

It is time to admit you were totally wrong. I don't even need an apology, just be mature enough to accept you were wrong and I will forgive you.

Thank you Londoner for this TKO

-- Updated September 2nd, 2013, 10:37 am to add the following --

Here's the quote to remind our audience:

2. 30 years NASA satellite images of North Pole show no sign of significant change. (ignored)

-- Updated September 2nd, 2013, 10:44 am to add the following --

You have seen the 30 year time lapse photos of the North Pole. In which year did the ice not return? I couldn't find it, even though I watched it several times. Please advise which year the ice doesn't return as normal. Please advise - if the climate is getting hotter; why hasn't the 100 day melt period changed in 30 years?

Here's another quote from you, DarwinX. This one was a couple of days ago I believe.

-- Updated September 2nd, 2013, 10:48 am to add the following --

Oh Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!! It looks like the sea ice is returning to its average level this year. How bloody inconvenient of it. It looks like all those thousands of scientist are wrong after all, and all those billions of dollars in climate change bullsh*t have been wasted. Who would have guessed it? Gee golly gosh! Somebody had better go up to the North Pole straight away, and tell that naughty ice to stop expanding so much, its embarrassing a lot of important people.

Here's a third quote from you. Again, we are waiting for you to admit you were wrong.

This is the most insane thread I have ever seen. Of course, this is exactly what happened at the World Climate Conference-3, where every scientific crackpot on Earth showed up to argue in favor of his own theory. They spent so much time trying to decide what they should discuss first, they never got around to discussing much at all.

Also, they have had all the climate conferences in Geneva. One of them said maybe they should have it in Mexico City in Summer to make their point. Apparently, said individual was unaware that Mexico City sits at 7,943 feet, and is quite comfortable in summer.

You guys can argue this stuff forever, post your little movies that no one watches, call each other names, and disagree til death do you part, but do any of you live near the coast? Have any of you actually seen any signs of increased sea levels? I have seen estimates from 40 -100 foot rises in sea level if all the ice on Earth melts. This will be mostly a coastal problem, and some low lying areas will be uninhabitable. It isn't the end of the world, and it isn't going to happen all at once. We will adjust and move on. It will be a footnote in human history. Get over it.

To whoever it was, way back there, who said the variations in the Sun's output were more important to climate change than most anything else: You are correct. A fraction of a percent fluctuation in the output of the Sun can cause dramatic changes on Earth.

When Jimmy Carter was president, there was talk of covering the ice areas of the world with carbon dust to absorb more heat from the Sun to combat the perceived global cooling at the time. No comments on that? No similarities to the global warming stuff going on now? Are you guys actually discussing anything except your own beliefs?