Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You also have a theory. And if you're wrong about it, the entire human race might literally die.
The scientists are the skeptics. You are just a cynic.
I have no theory. I have long (for over six decades) measured and assessed evidence against a cited theory using an established standard of proof to see if the evidence hurdles or failures to hurdle the established standard of proof. It's that simple, and my track record amply demonstrates that I am very good at it.
I have no idea what your standard of proof is or if you believe the single most probative item of evidence is in any way dispositive as regards the theory of man-made global warming.
The Chicken Littles will be here shortly to call you a "Denier".
Im glad to see many people are now beginning to see the nonsense in this whole Global Warming/Climate Change Hoax.
First of all let me start out by saying I do not think the term "climate change" is a hoax per se.
The trouble with it is that people on the left want to use it to push an agenda whether man has anything to do with it or not.
In the 1970's we were supposedly having man made global cooling and headed for an ice age. That term probably would have stuck, but fell out of favor when it was shown the temperatures were starting to rise, not fall. Then we were supposedly having man made global warming until the early 2000's. That term probably would have stuck, but fell out of favor after a few years of the temperatures no longer rising.
So now the new term is climate change, coined for the specific reason to avoid critique of the agenda that wants to keep the notion alive that man controls what is happening to the weather/climate.
Many people that consider themselves "environmentalists" are probably rolling their eyes after having read the previous paragraph.
However it might comes as a surprise or even a shock for them to hear that I consider myself to be an environmentalist.
Just as with the debated aforementioned definition of what climate change means, so too can someone be a environmentalist without it meaning you must believe in left wing dogma.
I conserve energy for not only practical financial reasons, but as a general philosophy of not being wasteful. I recycle, participate in clean up efforts when I can(i.e. water ways, beaches, etc.), am a strong advocate for protecting endangered species, and so on.
As an environmentalist I am a believer that man needs to protect our sources of potable water which we have been responsible for damaging/reducing. I also believe we need to find better solutions to our refuse/trash problems which will not only come back to haunt us on land and at sea, but it also adversely effects our potable water resources. I also believe we need be better at protecting natural resources through conservation, recycling, emission reductions, etc.
However just because I know that we are factually responsible for the aforementioned, it does not mean I believe we are directly responsible for the climate changing.
The climate has gone through many changes, both with cold and heat long before the industrial revolution. For that matter, well before mans existence which is not conjecture, this has been shown to be true by some of the very scientists that say we are, and are not responsible for climate change. It is only mans hubris that allows him to believe we have that much power/responsibility to alter the planets climatic changes.
I know some on the left don't know any better because they drink the (D) koolaid and have been brainwashed(starting early in our educational system) into thinking we are causing everything from intense hurricanes, to rising seas, to increased tornado activity, etc., etc. They also accept Hollywood's version of our future with movies like "The Day After Tomorrow".
But again, it is mans hubris that allows this to take hold in the first place.
So take it from an environmentalist to go and find a cause we know we have control over such as protecting our fresh water supply. Use your energy, time, resources and passion to have a positive effect on our grandchildrens future.
I believe in global warming, but beyond that I'm unsure, and that includes the cause. I base that on three points;
1) Ice I nature is melting . Does anyone question that ice is melting in glaciers and ice caps? Water only changes state from solid (ice) to liquid under two conditions, pressure increase or temperature increase. The former isn't possible in our atmosphere as it would crush all life forms. So that leaves temperature. Hence, Ice is melting so temperature must have increased. What am I missing?
2) My own empirical and anecdotal observations say that the temperature at my home of 25 years has increased. This is based on my own measurements as well as those of a government weather station nearby. I have also observed significantly more winter rain than snow (i.e. warmer cold fronts). Plants that used to flourish, no longer grow in the increased heat. Snowpack and lake levels are all down more regularly, compared to two decades ago. What else can I assume except that it has gotten hotter?
3) I know that energy can't be destroyed and that energy in the form of heat flows from hot to cold, never the reverse. When I feel the exhaust on my AC unit I feel heat. I also see heat being released from all internal combustion cars, from home heaters, refrigerators, electrical devices etc. I also feel heat being generated from friction of millions of car tires rolling along the highway, probably billions. heat is being generated everywhere through man made devices. Where does it go? Since it can't be destroyed, it must have "flowed" into cooler areas of the world. Much like my house, when i flow heat into a cold room, the room temperature goes up. Where does this incredible amount of heat go, year after year, after year?
I believe in global warming, but beyond that I'm unsure, and that includes the cause. I base that on three points;
1) Ice I nature is melting . Does anyone question that ice is melting in glaciers and ice caps? Water only changes state from solid (ice) to liquid under two conditions, pressure increase or temperature increase. The former isn't possible in our atmosphere as it would crush all life forms. So that leaves temperature. Hence, Ice is melting so temperature must have increased. What am I missing?
2) My own empirical and anecdotal observations say that the temperature at my home of 25 years has increased. This is based on my own measurements as well as those of a government weather station nearby. I have also observed significantly more winter rain than snow (i.e. warmer cold fronts). Plants that used to flourish, no longer grow in the increased heat. Snowpack and lake levels are all down more regularly, compared to two decades ago. What else can I assume except that it has gotten hotter?
3) I know that energy can't be destroyed and that energy in the form of heat flows from hot to cold, never the reverse. When I feel the exhaust on my AC unit I feel heat. I also see heat being released from all internal combustion cars, from home heaters, refrigerators, electrical devices etc. I also feel heat being generated from friction of millions of car tires rolling along the highway, probably billions. heat is being generated everywhere through man made devices. Where does it go? Since it can't be destroyed, it must have "flowed" into cooler areas of the world. Much like my house, when i flow heat into a cold room, the room temperature goes up. Where does this incredible amount of heat go, year after year, after year?
It sounds like you believe in the alleged effect -- man made global warming -- but do not pretend to know the cause. If so, you would not and are not claiming that man made CO 2 emissions are the cause of the alleged effect. Am I correct?
It also sounds like you are relying entirely on your three cited points as the basis for your position.
In your third point, you note that mankind releases energy (it does not create energy) that generates heat as it goes about its effort to live and survive from day-to-day. As food for your thoughts, I will note that as best I know, the man-made global warming community is not proposing that the heat generated from released energy will either change or be reduced under their proposals. Rather, they simply wish to have different sources produce the same amount of released energy and attendant heat.
Your second point is based on empirical and anecdotal evidence of your own, which generated an assumption on your part that it has gotten hotter, at least in and around where you live. However, you do not say and I do not think you believe if that is true (and it might well be) that it logically or necessarily means that aggregate global temperatures have gotten hotter. Moreover, I'm not sure that you are even implying such to be the case, especially since you hold the cause of the alleged man-made global warming to be unknown. How in your mind could such a very limited set of empirical and anecdotal evidence support a high-level belief (certainty) that the globe is warming?
And just to be clear, your first point is based on the fact that as temperatures rise in the northern polar region more ice will melt. However, you are not claiming the temperatures are rising due to actions by mankind. Am I correct?
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,168,495 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
I referenced your arguments and the evidence to which you have referred as proof of man-made global warming and also your unknown (to me) standard of proof. I then noted my thoughts on the ability of everyday jurors to assess evidence against a defined standard of proof.
I never mentioned or referred to scientists, never. Nor did I intend to refer to them.
Adduce as you will.
My standard of proof is the worldwide consensus of scientists on any particular subject within their field, especially in the modern era using modern methods such as highly refined statistical analyses on copious data.
I pointed out that jury trials have nothing much to do with the scientific method. They use people chosen at random from a pool of voters. Science uses highly trained professionals only ..... even then they must stick to their field, or risk making stupid mistakes - as in lists of scientists who supposedly don't believe in AGW.
Not mentioning or referring to climate scientists is your problem, it's not a virtue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
This is my big problem with your side of the debate and despite your attempts to claim otherwise it IS a debate. Your side seeks to paint any skeptic, first in the pejorative term "denier" and then you make an assumption that they are either paid off by big oil or an old testament religious believer who denies modern science. Meanwhile you ascribe nothing but professionalism and good intentions to the scientists who support the alarmist position whereas any scientist who comes out a skeptic *must* have ulterior motives.
This notion of a consensus and shutting down the debate is not a new one. It's been going on almost since the beginning when this first became an issue that entered public awareness in the late 80s, early 90s. Science should WELCOME skepticism and debate! It makes for better science. What we have instead here is intractable DOGMA. We are essentially being told : "We know best, we have science on our side, don't ask questions, don't think for yourselves, just shut up and believe what we tell you to believe".
Sorry. That doesn't float with me. I started becoming skeptical once I noticed the alarmists attempting to shut down the debate and attacking anyone who didn't comply with their dogma.
My problems?
* Climate science is still a very young discipline. It relies on computer models and our incomplete understanding of all of the influences of the climate to make, often alarming predictions. The reason for the alarming predictions is that the alarmists believe that frightening people gets attention, gets more funding and moves people into action. Too bad it makes for lousy science and it only works for so long before people start becoming deaf to it or skeptical of it.
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty." Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist
Then we have politicians and policy leaders who cynically use this *crisis* as a pretext for environmental activism, raising taxes, wealth distribution, and a host of other policies which would not be very popular without the threat of an impending catastrophe.
“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat
"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." Al Gore
DO I think the Koch brothers and big oil seek to diminish climate science to protect profits, sure I do.
However, that is only HALF of the story. I also think the alarmist side has become corrupted with the billions of dollars flowing into research predicated on alarmism as well as the chance to use this issue to advance their political and activist goals. Neither side has their hands entirely clean, the casualty here is the TRUTH and the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.
I don't think this is a non-issue and I do think we need to clean up the environment and get off of our reliance on oil and coal, however, alarmism and shutting out skepticism and debate is NOT the way to accomplish those goals.
My final issue with this argument is that even if we were for the sake of argument to assume that the alarmist view is correct, I have not heard from anyone how raising taxes and increasing government is going to change the climate back to normalcy *whatever that is*.
How do we assure China, India and the developing economies of the world all comply? Our efforts will be moot if they do not.
How do we change an infrastructure, economy and society built upon access to cheap energy in the form of oil and coal to an alternative that emits less CO2 within the small window of time the alarmists say we have to act?
I have not heard any good ideas on these issues all I keep hearing is "listen to us, we know what's best"
The only debate on AGW is among amateurs such as politicians. As I've said before, if you doubt that simply produce a link to a paper by a climate scientist in the last 5 years that denies AGW...... or is even skeptical that at least some of it happens. Around the world.
The scientists in your list of quotes aren't denying AGW. They're simply driven (in my opinion) by the motivation to get some information to the general public who are more used to celebrity gossip than scientific issues. Something to draw their attention. That was wrong of them when it went to the point of real exaggeration.
Climatologists are not trying to shut down a debate amongst themselves - there is no debate now, because there was plenty of it before, and they're past that stage. Again, it's like claiming the Earth is about 6000 years ago ...... there's no debate anymore among cosmologists as to whether that's true or not.
Their beliefs are not "dogma" because the data, analyses, and debates are fully in the public record. You can start examining that (if you have the patience) by reading popular articles to get an overview, and then follow references to the original papers. To get a sense of the current "debate" you might subscribe to a professional's climate magazine.
Your concern with solutions being bad is another issue entirely ........ first we have to get the voters to agree that there IS AGW, and that it is a potentially severe problem. Then we need to refine the science a bit, get more accurate models and more powerful computers for the complex number-crunching. At the same time we can begin debating about the best methods to mitigate the problem, not just start off with the first solution that jumps to mind.
My standard of proof is the worldwide consensus of scientists on any particular subject within their field, especially in the modern era using modern methods such as highly refined statistical analyses on copious data.
I pointed out that jury trials have nothing much to do with the scientific method. They use people chosen at random from a pool of voters. Science uses highly trained professionals only ..... even then they must stick to their field, or risk making stupid mistakes - as in lists of scientists who supposedly don't believe in AGW.
Not mentioning or referring to climate scientists is your problem, it's not a virtue.
SNIP
You have not assessed the evidence, nor have you reasoned and/or measured it against a standard of proof. You have simply chosen to let others do this and you have simply accepted an alleged consensus position without at all vetting the sources upon which you are relying or understanding the level of certainty upon which they are basing their individual findings.
This a huge reasoning error and represents a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".
All bow to the King. The King can do no wrong. Long live the King.
The only debate on AGW is among amateurs such as politicians. As I've said before, if you doubt that simply produce a link to a paper by a climate scientist in the last 5 years that denies AGW...... or is even skeptical that at least some of it happens. Around the world.
How about three of them? There are plenty more.
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
Nicola Scafetta We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin.
The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030–2040. Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
Syun-Ichi Akasofu A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA).
These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?
John R. Christy 1,* email, Benjamin Herman 2email, Roger Pielke Sr. 3email, Philip Klotzbach 4email, Richard T. McNider 1email, Justin J. Hnilo 1email, Roy W. Spencer 1email, Thomas Chase 3email and David Douglass 5email
The scientists in your list of quotes aren't denying AGW. They're simply driven (in my opinion) by the motivation to get some information to the general public who are more used to celebrity gossip than scientific issues. Something to draw their attention. That was wrong of them when it went to the point of real exaggeration.
I never said they were denying AGW, they are exaggerating it's impact though and therein lies the rub! It is no longer science if you exaggerate your conclusions in order to get attention or raise awareness. It becomes advocacy at that point. Such behavior would be immediate grounds for the dismissal of evidence in a court of law. Science should be impartial and it should be blind. It should NOT be exaggerated or misrepresented in order to gain funding, public attention or for any other reasons.
It sounds like you believe in the alleged effect -- man made global warming -- but do not pretend to know the cause. If so, you would not and are not claiming that man made CO 2 emissions are the cause of the alleged effect. Am I correct?
I believe that the temperature of the earth, on average, is rising. That is a little different than what you said. But you are right in that I am not claiming any link to CO2 or really any direct effect from humans other than existing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
It also sounds like you are relying entirely on your three cited points as the basis for your position.
They are my top three, there are others. But these are three that i have observed or can understand and these three are not reliant on data from other sources that may or may not be accurate. BTW, I have a BS and MS in Chemistry so I'm no shlep with regards to data interpretation, experimental design and complex cause/effect relationships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
In your third point, you note that mankind releases energy (it does not create energy) that generates heat as it goes about its effort to live and survive from day-to-day. As food for your thoughts, I will note that as best I know, the man-made global warming community is not proposing that the heat generated from released energy will either change or be reduced under their proposals. Rather, they simply wish to have different sources produce the same amount of released energy and attendant heat.
Yep and that would seem to be problematic. All created heat has to go somewhere and it has to raise the temperature of someplace. We are talking infinitesimally small exchanges that only become evident in aggregate over hundreds of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
Your second point is based on empirical and anecdotal evidence of your own, which generated an assumption on your part that it has gotten hotter, at least in and around where you live. However, you do not say and I do not think you believe if that is true (and it might well be) that it logically or necessarily means that aggregate global temperatures have gotten hotter. Moreover, I'm not sure that you are even implying such to be the case, especially since you hold the cause of the alleged man-made global warming to be unknown. How in your mind could such a very limited set of empirical and anecdotal evidence support a high-level belief (certainty) that the globe is warming?
Again, your assumption is correct. I am making my judgement that it is warmer on my street, my town and my region of the state based on this data. I'm not sure if I would use the word "Certainty" with regards to the globe as a whole. I have seen the melted ice on a recent trip to Alaska where I stood in the same spot as I had 20 years ago and I was now miles from the glacier. Other readings, communications and observations lead me to believe that what I am seeing locally is happening in many other parts of the world. though I could not possibly know the results of "everywhere". But because the world is essentially a huge heat sink, if excess heat is released in one spot, it incrementally raises the average temperature of the mass. We know this to be true on a micro scale and I am simply applying the same results on a macro scale. That may or may not be a valid approach, though when combined with the other observations suggests to me that it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
And just to be clear, your first point is based on the fact that as temperatures rise in the northern polar region more ice will melt. However, you are not claiming the temperatures are rising due to actions by mankind. Am I correct?
Here you missed. I am claiming that the atmosphere is warming, and it is due to man at least in part. But what i'm not saying is that mans part is a function of the CO2 release. I don't know if it is or isn't. i do know that we generate a lot of energy in the form of heat and that on a micro scale every BTU of heat released, raises the temperature of the atmosphere .000000000000000000001 BTU (totally made up number). And that after years and years, it becomes noticeable. There are other factors of man such as paving and buildings that used to absorb energy from the sun and now bounce it back to be "felt: by us earthlings.
So yes, I believe global warming is real. I also believe it is largely man made, but it could also have a natural cyclical component. But i make no claim as to the impact of CO2, but instead suggest it is simply the result of our energy consumption and subsequent release as heat.
I believe that the temperature of the earth, on average, is rising. That is a little different than what you said. But you are right in that I am not claiming any link to CO2 or really any direct effect from humans other than existing.
They are my top three, there are others. But these are three that i have observed or can understand and these three are not reliant on data from other sources that may or may not be accurate. BTW, I have a BS and MS in Chemistry so I'm no shlep with regards to data interpretation, experimental design and complex cause/effect relationships.
Yep and that would seem to be problematic. All created heat has to go somewhere and it has to raise the temperature of someplace. We are talking infinitesimally small exchanges that only become evident in aggregate over hundreds of years.
Again, your assumption is correct. I am making my judgement that it is warmer on my street, my town and my region of the state based on this data. I'm not sure if I would use the word "Certainty" with regards to the globe as a whole. I have seen the melted ice on a recent trip to Alaska where I stood in the same spot as I had 20 years ago and I was now miles from the glacier. Other readings, communications and observations lead me to believe that what I am seeing locally is happening in many other parts of the world. though I could not possibly know the results of "everywhere". But because the world is essentially a huge heat sink, if excess heat is released in one spot, it incrementally raises the average temperature of the mass. We know this to be true on a micro scale and I am simply applying the same results on a macro scale. That may or may not be a valid approach, though when combined with the other observations suggests to me that it is.
Here you missed. I am claiming that the atmosphere is warming, and it is due to man at least in part. But what i'm not saying is that mans part is a function of the CO2 release. I don't know if it is or isn't. i do know that we generate a lot of energy in the form of heat and that on a micro scale every BTU of heat released, raises the temperature of the atmosphere .000000000000000000001 BTU (totally made up number). And that after years and years, it becomes noticeable. There are other factors of man such as paving and buildings that used to absorb energy from the sun and now bounce it back to be "felt: by us earthlings.
So yes, I believe global warming is real. I also believe it is largely man made, but it could also have a natural cyclical component. But i make no claim as to the impact of CO2, but instead suggest it is simply the result of our energy consumption and subsequent release as heat.
If mankind is generating heat to support its life that for whatever reason does not decay at the same rate or escape beyond our atmosphere at the rate it once did on earth, then it would be fair to attribute some or all of proven global warming to mankind. All that is required is to prove it at a very high level of certainty, which no one has done -- my very experienced call.
My credentials lack an MS in chemistry -- but I did score 787 on my advanced chem SAT and stay at a Holiday Inn four decades ago -- however, I have two undergraduate degrees (one in engineering) and several graduate degrees -- one in information technology, which at the time equated to probably less than what most seventh graders know about technology today -- all of which were earned on full or nearly full scholarships at prestigious universities. Further, I've had multiple careers and am equally comfortable in a boardroom, a courtroom or a classroom or talking to a packed theater or auditorium.
Of course, the CO 2 based argument is unique and you are not on board that ship. When others say that they believe in global warming they almost universally mean CO 2 based global warming allegedly caused by mankind.
I think it would be astute of you to ensure you fully explain your position when you say you believe in global warming, because what those words mean to you is very different than the norm.
As Bruce Willis said in "Die Hard": "welcome to the party, pal."
I have no theory. I have long (for over six decades) measured and assessed evidence against a cited theory using an established standard of proof to see if the evidence hurdles or failures to hurdle the established standard of proof. It's that simple, and my track record amply demonstrates that I am very good at it.
I have no idea what your standard of proof is or if you believe the single most probative item of evidence is in any way dispositive as regards the theory of man-made global warming.
My standard of proof is objective reality. The temperature is going up. Period. The earth is round, it has one moon, and it is warming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
