- Status
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
That’s a pretty in-depth dissection, thanks for sharing. I wish I could read Japanese so I could pick up the original.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
I stand corrected,
The challenge is still open to you though, respond to the arguments presented in the above video, without resorting to ad hominems.
P
PetraG
Guest
No, I am done. I’m done pretending that there is some likelihood the American Chemical Society or the National Academies of Science or the American Meteorological Society or the American Physical Society are either hoodwinking us or being hoodwinked. This is in their wheelhouse, so those are the possibilities.
You keep on as long as you like, but please admit that he is making no new claims that the rest of the scientific community or even the meteorology or atmospheric chemistry or physics community is unaware of. In turn, I’m admitting that if you don’t believe them, there is 0.000% chance you are ever going to believe me.
Done.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
The claims being made haven’t been refuted, hence they remain valid objections.
As I posted separately, the models have yet to be validated by the scientific method, hence their thousands of feedback assumptions should remain open to questioning.
P
PetraG
Guest
Done means done. Dust shaken from feet. Done. Continue the “discussion” with someone else.
Last edited:
P
phaster
Guest
FWIW “we” have to realize,…
AND its an uphill battle against,…
said another way, w/ out a fundamental understanding of basic science, it seems like an endless cue of
actually,… even if there was a fundamental understand of basic science along w/ an appreciation of “risks” (by non-scientists), we also need to account for “paralysis” due to denial,…
to break out of the emotional deadlock, “faith” (in what basic science is saying) along w/ moral teachings is the key that is needed
sadly trying to teach people of faith the basics of CC science (given human nature) is easier said than done!!!
http://www.osvnews.com/2019/08/26/are-catholics-required-to-believe-in-global-warming/
P
phaster
Guest
seems I’m a glutton for punishment, because I’m “hopeful” that by repeatedly pointing out the basic science, eventually it is going to make some headway decreasing the knowledge gap between the concerns of what hard science scientists have come to understand AND what the non-science trained public (at large) thinks it knows
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
unfortunately it is pretty common for the the public at large to ignore fact(s) since CC is a complex science problem w/ not so obvious “symptoms” and “risks,…” hence it’s a slog
case in point, noticed @PetraG w/ a chemistry PhD trying yet again to point out, the inconvenient basic science truth about ocean chemistry,… yet the “informed” concern is called a distraction
PetraG:
The issue is the cause of global warming. Throwing in other disaster scenarios is simply a distraction from the tenuousness of the primary claim.
actually looking at the ocean eco system,… this is just the tip of the ice berg (so to speak)
rather than trying to teach the basic “hard” science, perhaps what is needed is simple kindergarten/1st-communion-catechism level story telling,… to make a point that people understand
@HumbleIOughtToBe as you have pointed out aside from not agreeing on what is true,… find it somewhat troubling to think that while NASA has figured out a way to build robotic space craft to explore the outer reaches of the solar system,… science messaging in an era of social media needs to be carefully distilled into a short media-friendly sound bite, w/ a cartoon?!
in other words, wonder if the best way to sell the idea of informed scientific concern to grown up adults (w/ ADD???), would have been for the pope to tweet,… let’s all pray that earth (our only home) has an eco system that hopefully does not end up like “Humpty Dumpty” …instead of going through the long process of authoring “LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
T
Theo520
Guest
why do you ignore posts that disagree with your point of view, is the science too much sometimes?
Last edited:
P
phaster
Guest
seems this topic should be considered water under the bridge
the BIG problem w/ CC is learning to appreciate the risks which are subtle in nature (yet have far reaching consequence)
for example given I have a physics back ground, I instantly had a grasp on the basics of why a “magnetic field” is needed for a planet to have an atmosphere and understood the BIG picture physics why ice ages come about over long periods of time,… BUT I needed to talk with individuals who have a chemistry background to understand just how disturbing it is to have the pH of the ocean change in a geological blink of an eye, then talked w/ individuals who have a bio back ground to understand the implications of a pH change on the eco system
was reminded this past weekend @ a BBQ how isolated each academic discipline can be from one another,… basically one of the other dinner guests was a BIO undergrad at MIT, went to CalTech for a PhD and is now doing a PostDoc at UCSD,… anyway asked him what it was like doing a PhD at CalTech (which is a bastion of math/physics),… he related a story about how he had to tech a Bio course to undergrad math/physics students AND they basically dismissed the need to understand the subject,… for example he said one CalTech student basically turned in an essay in response to a problem set with a bio question typo,… basically the long essay was rant about how the question made no sense (given the typo),… so the bio guy wrote back that he had to give the math/physics student a zero on the problem set, for not using common sense
my point bring up this dinner party story is, that it takes lots of puzzle pieces from different disciplines to appreciate the risks to the eco system AND all too often people only consider a narrow view because they do not have the necessary educational background or an opportunity to discuss one on one w/ people who have key knowledge
P
phaster
Guest
given the general lack of necessary formal education back ground in high level math, physics, chem, bio, etc., demonstrated, over and over again,… when for example you called attribution studies junk science
it took me awhile to make clear the metaphor why “Earth Has a Fever”
@ender dismissing the connection of CO2 w/ pH levels in the oceans
along w/ his thinking the idea that the earth is a black body,…PetraG:
The issue is the cause of global warming. Throwing in other disaster scenarios is simply a distraction from the tenuousness of the primary claim.
…many people here not having a grasp on the basics like,… ”human-caused carbon emissions VS greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes” for example
etc., etc., etc., makes me hesitant to start an on going discussion when I have to spend lots of time explaining all the basic science back ground necessary to understand a point (…which leads to burn out)
then it seems all too often people have the need to throw out a meaningless response that just adds “noise”
bottom line, if I think I can contribute a meaning insight I’ll do so,… otherwise I just keep quiet
P
PetraG
Guest
I had totally missed this one, lol. Good grief, excuse me for pointing out that high levels of CO2 have more than one known detrimental effect on the earth over which we have been given temporary stewardship! That was SO off-thread of me!
Good luck, everybody!!
E
Ender
Guest
You claimed that our current warming was “geologically unusual”. I responded to that claim and showed how it was not in fact true. In response to my comment you jumped to another, random claim that had nothing to do with the question of warming. This is the Wack-a-mole approach. Rather than defend one claim, other random claims are simply thrown out in the expectation of simply overwhelming what can be refuted, that the sheer volume of charges will suffice for the lack of the ability to defend any of them.
One of the commonest claims is that the warming we are…sorry, have experienced is unusual and unprecedented. That claim is false.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
There were, minimally, 77 claims about global cooling. You didn’t say I needed to prove a “consensus,” you merely stated that I needed to prove more than “a speculation of three researchers.”
I am not clear what your standard for “the scientific community” means, but surely I didn’t need to show “a consensus,” whatever that means; merely that the idea was widely held in the community of scientists.
I have met that burden of proof.
You also didn’t specify “meteorologists,” you simply said “scientific community.” Now you want to refine the standard to “meteorologists?”
Move the goalposts much?
Here is the statement of your challenge…
So you wanted me to prove “a consensus” of meteorologists, then? You should have stipulated, but then, of course, it would not have allowed you to raise the objection you kept in your back pocket.
Let’s also make note that you cherry picked the ones that didn’t fit your preset unstated criteria, but left out, entirely, comments on those such as Reid Bryson, the Kuklas, Madaleine Briskin, or Hurd Willett (a meteorologist at MIT) who claimed that while a 'little ice age" was 175 years out, that “in the next 25 years, temperatures will fall significantly lower than in the past decade.” That isn’t a “might be” it is a WILL, nor is it merely a “future possibility” as far as he was concerned.
You haven’t “debunked” anything. And you “getting tired” before completing the task doesn’t constitute an argument, just provides evidence for your state of mind.
Do try to be more thorough.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
What do you think of climate change?
Love it.
I love the Ohio fall currently with it’s swarms of small bugs, and soon I will love the mounds of dirty slush lining the streets. I enjoy the change of seasons. Storms, sun, wind. Etc…you know…weather.
I also appreciate the topography here, which was caused by THE RETREAT OF THE LAST ICE SHIELD, which occurred WAY before human beings could create large amounts of heat. (unless of course we want to talk about flatulence…add in that of beasts which must be substantial)
Yes, the ice is melting, and descendants of the ice-age beasts are responsible for climate reparations.
Love it.
I love the Ohio fall currently with it’s swarms of small bugs, and soon I will love the mounds of dirty slush lining the streets. I enjoy the change of seasons. Storms, sun, wind. Etc…you know…weather.
I also appreciate the topography here, which was caused by THE RETREAT OF THE LAST ICE SHIELD, which occurred WAY before human beings could create large amounts of heat. (unless of course we want to talk about flatulence…add in that of beasts which must be substantial)
Yes, the ice is melting, and descendants of the ice-age beasts are responsible for climate reparations.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
And I haven’t finished yet.
Here is some evidence that “a new ice age coming” was fairly established in the culture of the time…
The Weather Machine BBC documentary 1974
Isaac Asimov - Choice of Catastrophes (book) 1979. “A change in the average temperature of only 1 or 2 degrees could trigger another ice age.”
In Search of… The Coming Ice Age (Episode from TV Series 1978-1982) Leonard Nimoy voiced - see excerpt
The New Ice Age (book) 1978
Ice! (book) 1978
The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (book) 1977
Blizzard: What Happens If It Doesn’t Stop? (book) 1977
The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (book) 1976.
Deadly Harvest - a catastrophe movie about global cooling.
Ice or Fire? Surviving Climactic Change (book) 1978
The Sixth Winter (book) 1979
Where did these people get the idea if it was merely a fringe notion among “three researchers?”
By the way, the CIA did write an information bulletin on how the colder climate would impact food supplies and national security. You didn’t accept that as authentic despite the fact that it was referred to in a number of press articles. I suppose whoever contrived it went back in time and also concocted the fake press articles to bolster the authenticity of the bulletin. Careful, you are now treading loony conspiracy theory territory.
Here is some evidence that “a new ice age coming” was fairly established in the culture of the time…
The Weather Machine BBC documentary 1974
Isaac Asimov - Choice of Catastrophes (book) 1979. “A change in the average temperature of only 1 or 2 degrees could trigger another ice age.”
In Search of… The Coming Ice Age (Episode from TV Series 1978-1982) Leonard Nimoy voiced - see excerpt
The New Ice Age (book) 1978
Ice! (book) 1978
The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (book) 1977
Blizzard: What Happens If It Doesn’t Stop? (book) 1977
The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (book) 1976.
Deadly Harvest - a catastrophe movie about global cooling.
Ice or Fire? Surviving Climactic Change (book) 1978
The Sixth Winter (book) 1979
Where did these people get the idea if it was merely a fringe notion among “three researchers?”
By the way, the CIA did write an information bulletin on how the colder climate would impact food supplies and national security. You didn’t accept that as authentic despite the fact that it was referred to in a number of press articles. I suppose whoever contrived it went back in time and also concocted the fake press articles to bolster the authenticity of the bulletin. Careful, you are now treading loony conspiracy theory territory.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Point conceded. There were more than three.LeafByNiggle:
There were, minimally, 77 claims about global cooling. You didn’t say I needed to prove a “consensus,” you merely stated that I needed to prove more than “a speculation of three researchers.”
You have not even shown it was widely held. You have listed 77 names, which surely don’t represent anywhere near a sizable fraction of the number of scientists studying climate at the time. And of those 77, I debunked a good number of them. So no, it was never a widely held view like global warming is now. No way.
If you enlarge the definition of scientific community to include all sorts of scientists, that would work out to my advantage. For then to show a view was widely held among that larger group you would have to show a larger set of people predicting global cooling. So I don’t care how you define scientific community. Your choice. You still can’t show global cooling was widely held because it wasn’t.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Has anyone stopped to consider that this silliness has it’s source in the pride of the Fall.
Man has thought himself capable of controlling God’s creation since taking hold of The Apple.
And the idea that man can control and alter the course of Earth’s destiny is a part of that arrogance.
Man has thought himself capable of controlling God’s creation since taking hold of The Apple.
And the idea that man can control and alter the course of Earth’s destiny is a part of that arrogance.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is not arrogance to recognize that man’s activities can affect the climate. It is simply recognizing what is. Even the lowly bacteria can affect the atmosphere. So why can’t man?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So how many actually accredited “meteorologists,” specifically, and at a PhD level, were around in the 1970s? You provide the numbers, and I can track down how many of those considered global cooling a viable possibility.
Perhaps even name a few you would accept as sufficiently “expert,” and we can assess where they stood on the issue. I mean, let’s get really thorough, shall we?
By the way, Carl Sagan is on record as conceding that cooling was at least as possible as warming and even more likely given pollution, and so was James Hansen.
Last edited:
- Status