T
Theo520
Guest
This rings desperate by alarmists.
- Status
This rings desperate by alarmists.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This actually rings desperate by Watts Up With That, to search out articles like this instead of challenging climate change itself.
T
Theo520
Guest
This is peer reviewed research.
Why should it be ignored, are you embarrassed by such warmist agenda driven drivel?
It deserves mocking.
T
Theo520
Guest
Yet another frivolous climate lawsuit is body slammed.
E
Ender
Guest
“Peer reviewed”…that phrase doesn’t carry quite the ring of authority it once did. But you’re certainly right about this: it deserves to be mocked.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Mocking somebody’s conclusions from climate change, even peer-reviewed research, is not mocking climate change. Notice that the researchers are social scientists, not climate scientists. Their research was based on sociological data, and only looked into correlations between higher temperature and crime, etc. They probably know next to nothing about the underlying science to climate change, nor do they care. That was not their focus. But hey, if WUWT is having a slow day finding real climate change stories to mock, I can see why they turned to this story in their desperation.LeafByNiggle:
This is peer reviewed research.
Why should it be ignored, are you embarrassed by such warmist agenda driven drivel?
It deserves mocking.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
An oxymoron.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Trolling will be ignored.LeafByNiggle:
An oxymoron.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
What do you imagine you mean by “challenging climate change itself”. That sounds very nebulous and unscientific. It’s hardly a well defined term.
Isn’t the right approach to challenge the bad science and support the good science? Anthony Watt doesn’t dispute CO2 radiative forcing, so it would be dishonest for him to generically dispute climate change.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I mean challenging the majority view of climate scientists that the average temperature of the earth will continue to rise and that this rise is caused mostly by human activity, especially the release of greenhouse gasses. The article mocking the crime-vs-temperature research does not address any of that.LeafByNiggle:
What do you imagine you mean by “challenging climate change itself”.
Yes. And if you think this is bad social science then you should post it in a thread called “Social Science News.” (I am frankly not even sure this is bad social science. What if the statistics really do support the hypothesis?)
Last edited:
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Hmm is it worth reading this, is it denying the climate is changing
N
niceatheist
Guest
CO2’s properties have been known since the 19th century. Thermodynamics reigns supreme here. Unless you have some magical heat sink that gets rid of the additional energy absorbed by higher CO2 concentrations, it’s going to heat things up, and in general add more energy to climate systems.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
When the atmosphere heats up, it expands … pushes outward … the old PV=nRT and P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2
The gas laws.
The gas laws.
N
niceatheist
Guest
This is your serious proposal?
And before you answer, ponder that Venus’s atmosphere is about 100km high to Earth’s 80km, and that CO2’s higher density, not to mention Venus’s gravity, means your “inflating atmosphere” claim appears to have no basis in reality.
This looks to be an example of the frivolous claim tactic, wherein an obviously silly counterclaim is made just so the interlocutor came claim “I’ve debunked it!”
And before you answer, ponder that Venus’s atmosphere is about 100km high to Earth’s 80km, and that CO2’s higher density, not to mention Venus’s gravity, means your “inflating atmosphere” claim appears to have no basis in reality.
This looks to be an example of the frivolous claim tactic, wherein an obviously silly counterclaim is made just so the interlocutor came claim “I’ve debunked it!”
Last edited:
A
ATraveller
Guest
That does nothing about the effects of CO2 and other gases being infrared active and considering emissions continue to increase be it from human activity or the fact that drier conditions likely worsened by climate change allow more wildfires which deplete carbon sinks.
The science is not easy to refute. It’s quite solid. Policies are refutable and many of them are unpleasant. I don’t claim to know what governments should do but I know being unemployed as many will end up is not preferable either.
The science is not easy to refute. It’s quite solid. Policies are refutable and many of them are unpleasant. I don’t claim to know what governments should do but I know being unemployed as many will end up is not preferable either.
E
Ender
Guest
If CO2 was the only contributor to climate this objection might be meaningful, but since the climate’s properties are still unknown this dramatic oversimplification is not all that significant.
N
niceatheist
Guest
First of, where do you imagine the job losses will come from? The industries most vulnerable, particularly fossil fuel extraction, are already overall employing a lot less people than they used to, as technology has advanced. This seems more of a false dilemma than anything else.
Secondly, even if it were true, you’ve alluded to economic costs, and those will continue to mount so long as we keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. This will create inevitable drags on the economy, so how is that fundamentally any different than job losses?
Third, seeing as I’m posting on a Catholic forum, isn’t it a fundamental Christian tenet that man is steward of the earth. Ought we not give some consideration to future generations and do what we can to pass on a healthy climate, rather than simply mortgaging their futures for the illusion of short term prosperity?
Secondly, even if it were true, you’ve alluded to economic costs, and those will continue to mount so long as we keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. This will create inevitable drags on the economy, so how is that fundamentally any different than job losses?
Third, seeing as I’m posting on a Catholic forum, isn’t it a fundamental Christian tenet that man is steward of the earth. Ought we not give some consideration to future generations and do what we can to pass on a healthy climate, rather than simply mortgaging their futures for the illusion of short term prosperity?
N
niceatheist
Guest
You seem to be missing the point. Whether there are natural heat sinks or not, thermodynamics still applies. The complexity of a system doesn’t make the additional energy disappear.
E
Ender
Guest
You insist that there is additional energy despite the fact that no one can quite find out where it is. That’s what the past 15 years has been about: where is the missing energy? Yes, thermodynamics still applies, it’s just the rest of the assumptions that seem to be having trouble living up to expectations.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why is it necessary to find it? We can calculate the (name removed by moderator)ut and the output without finding how the heat is distributed.niceatheist:
You insist that there is additional energy despite the fact that no one can quite find out where it is. That’s what the past 15 years has been about: where is the missing energy? Yes, thermodynamics still applies, it’s just the rest of the assumptions that seem to be having trouble living up to expectations.
- Status