Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[The Quirkster]

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/In ... -it-wrong/

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong. The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science. The IPCC recognises the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

You can send your apology when you have finished whacking yourself on the back of the head.

Ahhh, DarwinX, your pursuit to illuminate the "herd" continues. And its importance as to how many minds you've changed, which is surely the purpose of your post, is paramount. It seems that your efforts have been flaccid and limp, based on the responses. But surely that won't stop you!

I'm not sure using The Mail as a source is the best idea. The bloke that started it was great friends with Hitler and Mussolini. But let's look at another source you used:

theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/o ... 6718786991

Something to think about. But, the same paper, today:

theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/p ... 6726494272

Give someone enough rope.....you know the rest.

[DarwinX]

Ahhh, DarwinX, your pursuit to illuminate the "herd" continues. And its importance as to how many minds you've changed, which is surely the purpose of your post, is paramount. It seems that your efforts have been flaccid and limp, based on the responses. But surely that won't stop you!

I'm not sure using The Mail as a source is the best idea. The bloke that started it was great friends with Hitler and Mussolini. But let's look at another source you used:

theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/o ... 6718786991

Something to think about. But, the same paper, today:

theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/p ... 6726494272

Give someone enough rope.....you know the rest.

Ah ha, so one of the few brave communists has decided to come out of hiding and address this issue again. Of course, you had to quote from the Australian Communist Newspaper. It looks like David Suzuki has come to Australia to try and reignite the climate change agenda. Too bad Tim Flannery was given the sack and the Climate Change Department was dismantled by the new Liberal Government.

I wonder if David Suzuki still equates humans to maggots?

Your on a real winner, backing climate change!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

[Teralek]

I'm tempted to open a thread entitled "DarwinX is a fraud" To see if this charade of poorly formulated denials ends... Now it's climate change, then it's vaccines, the Big Bang, Relativity, and so on...

[Xris]

I'm tempted to open a thread entitled "DarwinX is a fraud" To see if this charade of poorly formulated denials ends... Now it's climate change, then it's vaccines, the Big Bang, Relativity, and so on...

I believe in global warming and the main cause being man but this chart proves nothing. As for belief my friend you should look at your beliefs and ask are they scientific? are they sensible? I don't think so.

[DarwinX]

I'm tempted to open a thread entitled "DarwinX is a fraud" To see if this charade of poorly formulated denials ends... Now it's climate change, then it's vaccines, the Big Bang, Relativity, and so on...

I have already proven that the hockey stick graph is a fraud and now you bring out an old 2001 climate change chart. Surely you can do better than that!

Leaked IPCC email - "Hey, let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline" (Michael Mann - inventor of the hockey stick graph)

Note - The hockey stick graph comes down to one particular tree ring graph which was inverted because the graph showed a huge decline in temperature. That's Mike's trick! Good trick Mike, that should fool them!!!


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012 ... rpetrated/

[Happy recluse]

Since attacking credibility is part of this game, I remain unconvinced of global warming partly due to the actions of its loudest proponents. I see Leonard Di Caprio, Al Gore, Ted Turner, and Barach Obama living in highly energy consuming ways trying to force the rest of us to live differently through law. My conclusion is that they don’t believe there is global warming, but they want us to believe it so they can force their will upon us. Is there contrary evidence?

[DarwinX]

Since attacking credibility is part of this game, I remain unconvinced of global warming partly due to the actions of its loudest proponents. I see Leonard Di Caprio, Al Gore, Ted Turner, and Barach Obama living in highly energy consuming ways trying to force the rest of us to live differently through law. My conclusion is that they don’t believe there is global warming, but they want us to believe it so they can force their will upon us. Is there contrary evidence?

Try reading the previous posts. I have left piles of evidence.

[Happy recluse]

Try reading the previous posts. I have left piles of evidence.

You do realize that my point supports yours, don't you?

[Steve3007]

I am re-opening this topic for the benefit of the poster called Razblo, because he appears to be very interested in the subject of anthropogenic climate change. For various reasons he is sceptical of the idea that carbon-dioxide emissions from devices made by humans are having a significant contribution to warming of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans.



So far, as far as I can recall, he has made (among other things) the following general points in support of his argument:

1. The Earth's environment, and specifically its temperature, has always changed throughout its history. There have been numerous warm and cold periods, including many ice ages, one of which we have only just emerged from (we are in an "inter glacial period" I believe.) There have been such phenomena as the "medieval warm period". All of this suggests that any warming we are currently experiencing is unlikely to be caused predominantly by human activity.

2. The proportion, by volume, of the atmosphere which is carbon dioxide is 0.04%. That is a very small number. He asserts that this could not cause the 3% temperature rise which he says has been observed over the past 140 years - a steady rise with no significant spike over a time period that has seen the world population go from 150 million to 7 billion.

3. The tax credits available to the developers of electric cars create a strong incentive for people who develop those cars to back the idea that anthropogenic climate change is a genuine problem and that electric cars are part of the solution.

4. The kinds of measures that need to be put in place if anthropogenic climate change really were a problem are the kinds of things that have to be enforced by governments. This means that people who are in favour of "Big Government", for ideological reasons, or because they wish to extert control over others, have an incentive to support the idea that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

5. Many hundreds of climate scientists disagree that anthropogenic climate change is happening or is a significant factor. It is predominantly the scientists who back the idea that anthropogenic climate change is happening who receive funding - a financial motive.

6. There has been NO global warming since 1998. Global warming from 1978 to 1998 has been replaced by global cooling.

7. Scientific truth is not decided by democratic consensus. i.e. even if the majority of scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is significant, that doesn't in itself necessarily make it true.

8. The Earth's environment is a very complex system. This means that carbon dioxide is irrelevant.

---

Razblo: If you're reading this, please correct any of the above that are wrong. Even if that takes a while, I think it's worth doing first so that we are satisfied that you are not being misrepresented. Then perhaps we can encourage the discussion here to re-start. I think, if possible, it would be best to take points individually and try not to drift too much across topics.

[Fan of Science]

I don't think Razio is skeptical of science, he is a flat-out science denier and conspiracy theorist. Just take point one that you listed? First off, when carbon levels were as high as they are now, in the past, global temperatures were higher, and sea levels far higher. Secondly, as far as climate changes in the past, there is absolutely nothing we know of about past climate change that explains how fast the climate today is changing. The changes during the past few decades alone would have naturally taken thousands and thousands of years to take place. He also points to a well-known climate-science-tactic ---- point out to climate in one specific part of the globe in the past while ignoring that today's climate science is telling us the entire planet is warming.

Basically, almost any basic primer on climate change goes through the lies and distortions used by the denier crowd. One can purchase these books for less than 10 bucks off of Amazon.

[Steve3007]

F of S:

Just take point one that you listed? First off, when carbon levels were as high as they are now, in the past, global temperatures were higher, and sea levels far higher.

Yes, we can get into all of that in good time. What I'd like to do first is establish that the list of points that I've written there is reasonably complete and is an accurate non-partisan statement of Razblo's position. I think it only makes sense to move forward once that has been done. And I think it's only possible to deal with things like this by breaking it down into individual points. That's what I'm hoping to do here.

[Fan of Science]

I agree, but why wait to completely rip the science-denial claim to shreds? Take point number 5 on your list? That's Rabio completely overlooking the following facts: In 2014, the National Academy of Sciences public stated that climate change due to humans was a fact. In poll after poll, 97% of climate scientists believe the planet is warming due to humans. These scientists are not paid off. Who would be paying them off to say this? Their incomes would be the same whether they were doing their present work or something different, still involving research. The 3% that deny the science aren't even denying the science. What that 3% claims is that the damage from the warming is nothing to worry about, and those scientists are receiving big money from Big Oil. In other words, science-deniers like Razio, who claim to not be gullible, are among the most gullible people on Earth since they believe what people say who have been bought and paid for by Big Oil.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 1:08 pm to add the following --

Take point seven on his list? It's simply not the case that science does not follow a consensus view. It most definitely does, and cannot proceed otherwise. Ultimately science is depended on the facts; however, when 97% of the scientists in a given field believe something, then that is scientific orthodoxy. It is not the case that it is rational to believe the 3% who are in disagreement with the 97%. That's pure bunk. If that were the case, then the handful of conspiracy theorists and other psychos who earn science degrees and deny evolution would have just as valid opinions as the 97% of biologists who believe evolution is a fact. That minority viewpoint does not represent science. We are not even speaking of a slight majority here with 97% of climate scientists in agreement about climate change being caused by humans, that is by any definition a super-majority.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 1:15 pm to add the following --

Let's take point 6. The claim that there has been no global warming since 1998 is completely fraudulent. What the science-denial clowns due is take an extremely warm year, involving El Nino, and then start there measurement of temperature change from that point. In science, we call that intentionally manipulating the data. In lay person's language, it's called lying one's ass off. What anyone can see is that the trend line is going up and up, while one can take an unusually hot El Nino year and see that the following years will be cooler, that does nothing to refute the trend line. In fact, we can mathematically take out al of that noise from factors like El Nino, and what we see is virtually a steady line showing temperature rise with the rise in greenhouse gases.

The other factor to consider is that most of the heat is absorbed by the ocean water. In years where land surface temperatures don't rise, guess what the data shows regarding ocean temperature? An accelerated rise. So, the temperature rise is always there, the science deniers simply fail to look at both land surface rise and ocean temperature rise. We also call that cherry-picking of the data --- lying.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 1:16 pm to add the following --

I apologize. What the science-denial clowns do, not due....And "their" measurement, not there.

I don't proof read before sending the submit button most times.

[LuckyR]

Why does anyone care what a non-expert thinks about a highly technical topic?

[Razblo]

Why does anyone care what a non-expert thinks about a highly technical topic?

A non expert? Hey, are all these above experts? Wow! Who would have thought.

So easy to become an expert these days it seems.

[Ranvier]

Ultimately, the best and only tool really that anyone of us has is our individual logic. I can't think of any topic that wouldn't cause gravitation of "expert opinions" from "specialists" on both sides of any issue. The best we can do is to listen to both sides presenting their evidence and ascertain who brings the best argument, own logic not withstanding.

Are humans contributing to the global warming... of course we do! 7.42 billion of warm blooded animals with quite active metabolism generate plenty of heat just by thinking
We are addicted to energy production and use, where if anyone knows anything about chemistry, in our entropic universe energy production equates with heat... leave your car engine running for few minutes to confirm. Majority of chemical reactions or rather most reactions are exothermic, so simple everyday global industry raises planet's temperature. Is it exacerbated by carbon dioxide emissions? Possibly but plants only love us more for that...
Just plant a new tree every 5m apart on the city sidewalk and call it a good day. Of course I'm being facetious, it's a serious issue not for the planet but for the potentially rational primates that can affect their own environment in hope to survive.