When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
scientific measurements where obviously not taken - but the climate can be reconstructed from proxy data
Geologist have not seen the Grand Canyon form but they still have a pretty good idea how it was done
the "Observational" meme - is a classic creationist anti evolutionist trick
"we can't directly observe evolution hence it does not exist - it is by design"
I mean if we evolved from apes - why are there still apes, simple common sense!!!!!
we can't directly observe the Grand Canyon being formed hence God did it in a flood
We can't directly observe the past climate hence we know nothing
scientist don't set out to prove anything - Theory sit on a body of evidence
just as Evolution has a vast body of evbidenec supporting it so does AGW
"Surprisingly to some, science does not deal in proof, in spite of the word being associated with science a whole lot more than perhaps it should be. Scientists will throw around phrases like "we've just proved our theory" when they should know better, but this can be excusable human nature. With some theories its very difficult not to think of them as proven (Newton's laws of motion, for instance, which always have and always will describe the behavior of objects within the limits of those theories.) Science as a method, however, deals not in proof but in evidence, and perhaps disproof when the evidence contradicts a hypothesis.
For example, finding a fingerprint at the scene of a crime may be construed by most people as "proof" that the owner of the fingerprint was, at some stage, at that location. Science would say that the fingerprint is "evidence" that somehow a means of leaving that fingerprint was at that location. More evidence can be collected that shows a person was there at the right time, or perhaps some evidence is shown that they weren't there. It is up to someone working in the world of science to put together a hypothesis which is consistent with this evidence when taken together. A scientist hasn't strictly proved anything by putting together this hypothesis, but they have constructed a realistic scenario based on overwhelming evidence.
Anti-evolutionists often ask for proof of evolution, and are triumphant when none is forthcoming. This is perfectly reasonable for science to do —after all, no scientist can even be certain of what evidence will come up in the future that may contradict the current theory. Yet those of the anti-science movement who cling to this detail usually fail to hear the words put in place of "proof" - overwhelming evidence. In a way they know they are being disingenuous, for they understand the way the legal system uses the word proof in that overwhelming evidence is considered to prove a case, yet reject that same usage for when science talks of the overwhelming evidence for evolution".
and you can simply trumpet the old "We don't know everything - therefore we know knowing" claptrap - but science is an evolutionary process building on itself continuously based on evidence and observation
listen you can believe all you want - that's fine just don't suppose it is backed up by science or the evidence
if you do want to understand the science behind AGW - and the overwhelming evidence to support it, without the Al Gore / Environmentalist spin
There may be an increase in atmospheric CO2 but how much is that is due to human compared to naturally occurring CO2? It's estimated by the IPCC that humans contribute 29 gigatons of CO2. Whilst that amount sounds huge, it is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons that is naturally produced per year, that is 0.04% of total CO2 is man made, a figure that can be cancelled out by natural variation or by errors in calculations. Also bare in mind that life on this planet flourished with higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. I remain sceptical that 0.04% CO2 produced by man, but as yet to prove, can affect the climate as much as the climate scientists claim and then go to say a reduction of 40% or 0.01% of combined total CO2 produced will limit a temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C.
Saying something cannot have an effect because it is a small percentage is seriously flawed. Try taking Hydrogen Cyanide at 50ppm, then try it again at 100ppm, see how it goes.
"Slow and steady—is that how the earth’s rock layers were deposited? At Grand Canyon we find lots of clear evidence that catastrophic forces were once at work, reshaping the surface of our planet. Only an unprecedented, global flood can explain what we find at Grand Canyon."
they get plenty of scientist to argue the case and put forward their evidence
My favourite piece of Climate Change denial is the argument that 'the climate always changes' like that fact is going to be lost on a climate scientist!
It's the fact that the climate always changes that allows the models to work effectively. Historical changes in climate can be explained by the variables in the models, earth orbit, solar activity etc. It the fact that until you add Co2 into the models that recent rises in temperature can't be explained.
It's not a perfect science of course, but it's the best we have.
My favourite piece of Climate Change denial is the argument that 'the climate always changes' like that fact is going to be lost on a climate scientist!
It's the fact that the climate always changes that allows the models to work effectively. Historical changes in climate can be explained by the variables in the models, earth orbit, solar activity etc. It the fact that until you add Co2 into the models that recent rises in temperature can't be explained.
It's not a perfect science of course, but it's the best we have.
this is a known phenomenon called the Dunning Kruger effect
we all suffer from it to some degree, but AGW deniers, Evolution deniers and all other conspiracy theorist's have it in spades
its the unemployed postman from Droitwich who somehow knows more about structural engineering, avionics and explosives than the worlds experts, so much so in fact he can state categorically that WTC's was controlled demolition and it would be impossible for a plane to hit the Pentagon
or the car mechanic who has read a blog on the internet and can say for sure that AGW is b0llox - contradicting the vast majority of the worlds climate scientist
as I said we all suffer from "Dunning Kruger" - the trick is to recognise it
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 15 December 2015 at 05:40 PM.
My favourite piece of Climate Change denial is the argument that 'the climate always changes' like that fact is going to be lost on a climate scientist!
.
oh and this is again a good 10 min video that addresses that very problem
I have a few questions about climate scientists:
1. How many of them were there pre 80's?
2. Why are there so many now?
3. Why do the ones who offer alternatives have zero funding?
4. Are these the same scientists who predicted the Med climate for the soith coast by 2015?
5. The same ones who predicted the present med coast would be desert by now?
6. The same ones who predicted the ice age in the mid 70's?
7. The ones who have been predicting HUGE temperature rises, while, in fact, we've seen none?
8. The ones who've predicted huge rises in sea levels, when, in fact, we've seen none?
the ones who, when challenged, resort to telling the challenger that they need to learn the difference between climate and weather?
9. the ones who ALWAYS use the excuse "That's weather" when ANOTHER of their predictions goes skew whiff?
10. the ones whose funding DEPENDS on saying what governments want to hear?
Hodgy, you accuse me of strawman, most if not all of your posts today is littered with it! Creationism, Darwinian, Evolution, Grand Canyon, etc. Typical attempt of pro AGW to try and discredit those who question AGW, play the man instead of the ball!
If you set out to try and prove a hypothesis, you will only gather evidence to support your hypothesis. The problem is the pro AGW already have a preconceived notion that what they believe is correct and will only present evidence to support their claim. If what they find doesn't support their hypothesis, they become selective in what data to use and/or present it in such a way and alter their models to support their hypothesis. Those, scientists included, who merely question it, not to debunk or disprove it, are labelled "climate change deniers" or "flat earthers" and are promptly shut down and not open to debate (my own personal experience with activists in London). We get climate science is settled, end of, without any conclusive evidence for AGW. There is nothing wrong in questioning their methods or how the data is presented.
It is assumed that the IPCC is the world authority on all climate matters and its reports are based on “independent” assessments of published research. In 2007 its reports claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. It turned out that research was purely speculative based on a magazine article authored by a glaciologist. It had no scientific evidence to support its claims. However, it was included in the IPCC report because the IPCC author thought “that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take action.”
Luckily not all scientists follow the pro AGW mantra and in fact many scientists, real scientists in the field not bloggers or journalists or tweeters, believe that the natural process is the overriding factor in changing climates, not man.
However, it is the pro AGW that have the loudest voice backed by the world’s most powerful and richest nations. This is perpetuated by the mainstream media with sensationalist headlines like "ice free North Pole by 2013", "extreme weather", "catastrophic warming", "run-away greenhouse", and images of skinny polar bears, disappearing land mass under the sea, Earth engulfed in flames, etc, I've even seen earthquakes and tsunamis being blamed on global warming! There is so much misinformation and misrepresentation. With no compelling evidence, do people actually believe that by only reducing man made CO2 by 40% or 0.01% of CO2 produced by natural processes will actually stop or limit global warming to 2 degrees C?
Hodgy, you accuse me of strawman, most if not all of your posts today is littered with it! Creationism, Darwinian, Evolution, Grand Canyon, etc. Typical attempt of pro AGW to try and discredit those who question AGW, play the man instead of the ball!
If you set out to try and prove a hypothesis, you will only gather evidence to support your hypothesis. The problem is the pro AGW already have a preconceived notion that what they believe is correct and will only present evidence to support their claim. If what they find doesn't support their hypothesis, they become selective in what data to use and/or present it in such a way and alter their models to support their hypothesis. Those, scientists included, who merely question it, not to debunk or disprove it, are labelled "climate change deniers" or "flat earthers" and are promptly shut down and not open to debate (my own personal experience with activists in London). We get climate science is settled, end of, without any conclusive evidence for AGW. There is nothing wrong in questioning their methods or how the data is presented.
It is assumed that the IPCC is the world authority on all climate matters and its reports are based on “independent” assessments of published research. In 2007 its reports claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. It turned out that research was purely speculative based on a magazine article authored by a glaciologist. It had no scientific evidence to support its claims. However, it was included in the IPCC report because the IPCC author thought “that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take action.”
Luckily not all scientists follow the pro AGW mantra and in fact many scientists, real scientists in the field not bloggers or journalists or tweeters, believe that the natural process is the overriding factor in changing climates, not man.
However, it is the pro AGW that have the loudest voice backed by the world’s most powerful and richest nations. This is perpetuated by the mainstream media with sensationalist headlines like "ice free North Pole by 2013", "extreme weather", "catastrophic warming", "run-away greenhouse", and images of skinny polar bears, disappearing land mass under the sea, Earth engulfed in flames, etc, I've even seen earthquakes and tsunamis being blamed on global warming! There is so much misinformation and misrepresentation. With no compelling evidence, do people actually believe that by only reducing man made CO2 by 40% or 0.01% of CO2 produced by natural processes will actually stop or limit global warming to 2 degrees C?
Jonc with one ill thought out comment you just wrote off all scientific discovery and the processes that underpin them - one of the maddest comments I think I've ever read
Last edited by Martin2005; 15 December 2015 at 08:20 PM.
Saying something cannot have an effect because it is a small percentage is seriously flawed. Try taking Hydrogen Cyanide at 50ppm, then try it again at 100ppm, see how it goes.
No one is questioning the properties of CO2, and when tested in concentrations far in excess of what is in the atmosphere you will get the results the scientists are looking for. However, try finding documented tests of CO2 in the same concentration as that of earths atmosphere producing the same behavior.
Just as you given me hydrogen cyanide concentrations as an example I take it you are a proponent on the effectiveness of homeopathy.
Jonc with one ill thought out comment you just wrote off all scientific discovery and the processes that underpin them - one of the maddest comments I think I've ever read
Ok, I didn't word that well, but if you read the rest of the paragraph you will get what I mean. Impartiality has gone out the window, the principle of a hypothesis is there there is no pre-defined outcome and something that can be supported or refuted. This just isn't the case with AGW "science".
Ok, I didn't word that well, but if you read the rest of the paragraph you will get what I mean. Impartiality has gone out the window, the principle of a hypothesis is there there is no pre-defined outcome and something that can be supported or refuted. This just isn't the case with AGW "science".
Where has the impartiality 'gone out the window' I don't understand what evidence there is for this. You seem to be doing what you are accusing the scientists of i.e. starting with a hypothesis and only allowing things you agree with to enter the debate.
Where has the impartiality 'gone out the window' I don't understand what evidence there is for this. You seem to be doing what you are accusing the scientists of i.e. starting with a hypothesis and only allowing things you agree with to enter the debate.
Have a look at the debates surrounding for and against the "97% consensus" for AGW.
Where has the impartiality 'gone out the window' I don't understand what evidence there is for this. You seem to be doing what you are accusing the scientists of i.e. starting with a hypothesis and only allowing things you agree with to enter the debate.
No one is questioning the properties of CO2, and when tested in concentrations far in excess of what is in the atmosphere you will get the results the scientists are looking for. However, try finding documented tests of CO2 in the same concentration as that of earths atmosphere producing the same behavior.
lol, this is simply science denial
here is just one of many scientific papers (published one of THE most respected scientific journals)
well he has words to say about the IPCC - but on the science he is pretty clear
and he actually puts the 97 consensus higher than 97%
but don't take my word for it
here is his words
"Mr Nuccitelli unfortunately missed the gist of my criticism of his work. Successive literature reviews, including the ones by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have time and again established that there has been substantial climate change over the last one and a half century and that humans caused a large share of that climate change. There is disagreement, of course, particularly on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate. There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.."
"The conclusion is unequivocal: fossil fuels have made the most significant contribution to rising atmospheric CO2 during the past couple of hundred years."
some fvcking blow!!!
how many more of that gish gallop crAp do I have to wade though
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 15 December 2015 at 10:44 PM.
Hodgy, I post cr@p? Have a look at some of what you've posted today! Look I don't want this to turn into a slanging match, this is a good debate.
Did you read http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full? Not completely unbiased since they use terms like "climate change deniers and sceptics" for scientists who don't follow AGW.
Your last link, whilst it states there is link between surface temps and GHG, it also states that "this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood". The spectra in the long term changes includes 4 other GHGs not just CO2 so, for me, it's inconclusive!
Did you read http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full? Not completely unbiased since they use terms like "climate change deniers and sceptics" for scientists who don't follow AGW.
yes it seems to be a study of a 1000 or so scientist who work for petroleum companies in Canada
"To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others."
so while interesting not really representative of scientist has a whole
it seems to be an analysis of the old saying by Upton Sinclair
"it is hard to understand if your job depends on not understanding"
So (not all by any measure as the study shows) but a few professionals in the Canadian petroleum industry think AGW is bunk
Lol
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 15 December 2015 at 11:14 PM.
And the IPCC and other "independent" research organisations looking into AGW? Heavily funded by governments pushing AGW! The IPCC is supposedly impartial and transparent but only publishes papers supporting AGW.
14 December 2015, 10:13 PM
Hodgy, you accuse me of strawman, most if not all of your posts today is littered with it! Creationism, Darwinian, Evolution, Grand Canyon, etc. Typical attempt of pro AGW to try and discredit those who question AGW, play the man instead of the ball! 
