SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Exactly.
Our intrepid pharmacist is happy to offer us his science illiterate expertise but pejoratively labels a scientist who speaks to the public.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Our intrepid pharmacist is happy to offer us his science illiterate expertise but pejoratively labels a scientist who speaks to the public.
Swampgator
Active Member
Nice attack Sage....... Hey, what was you level of expertise again?
As far as Michael Mann, just watch any of his congressional testimony and compare/contract to the other scientists on the panel. It is painfully obvious who the real scientists are and who the activists are.
Do try and keep it classy SageBrush. I know most on your political side are quick to resort to verbal attacks, and even violence because you believe in the moral superiority of you positions. But there is no need to resort to ad hominem here. Unless this thread is just an echo chamber for CAGW adherents, we should be able to discuss actual arguments and science, agree?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Radiative balance is the control knob and the atmosphere has orders of magnitude more variability than the sun or the orbit of the Earth. If you doubt this ask a historian about the summer of 1816. If a few million tons of a gas (SO2) that is slightly more opaque to incoming visible energy and less opaque outgoing IR energy (Negative forcing) can drop the global temperature by ~0.5C in a single year.... why is it so difficult to accept that BILLIONS on TONS/yr of a gas that is a positive forcing (CO2) would cause temperatures to rise?
Swampgator
Active Member
Couple of points to unpack.
#1. The amount of CO2 humans add each year to the atmosphere is real but small compared to natural emissions. CAGW theory makes the (incorrect) assumption that natural emissions and adsorption are always in balance. So then any increase is by default caused by humans.
#2 I do accept that CO2 has a small warming effect. The effect is more pronounced when going from lower levels like 300ppm to 400ppm. The effect gets smaller as the concentration increases. In other words going from 400ppm to 500ppm will cause less warming than 300-400ppm.. This is well understood. But observed ECS has been calculated to be much smaller than that predicted by IPCC and the climate models. Why is that?
#3 Probably because: Forcings do not equal warming. The earths climate is dynamic, chaotic, and has multiple feedbacks all tending towards equilibrium. Just one example: increased CO2 causes greening of earth, and therefor higher carbon sequestration.
#4 Another assumption CAGW adherents makes is that any warming above some magical number they pick is defacto harmful. It may very well be that the CO2 humans pump into the air has warmed us 1C or so, but that that warming is net beneficial vs harmful. And since the Earth is due for another cold period/ice age, that 1-2 C may actually help mitigate some of that cold. Cold is much more difficult for terrestrial creatures to deal with than warmth.
When I was in school a lot of the stuff they taught me turned out to be proven wrong years later. That led to a lot of critical thinking on my part.
I appreciate your debating on the merits of the arguments instead of attacking the messenger. That sharpens both sides of a debate is is really the only way to gain understanding of complex issues.
Of course you are 100% right but don't even try to present irrefutable facts to the religious anti-science AGW zealots here. They are absolutely not interested in scientific facts. After all, why would they accept absolute empirical scientific evidence when they can come up with pseudo-scientific models full of hypothetical assumptions and use that to support their bogus AGW agenda?
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Considerably more than yours, but the difference between us is that I know that I am not a climate scientist and any armchair analysis I could do would be foolish. I am smart enough, and educated enough, to heed the experts.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You see no significance in the fact that 2012 was a drastic anomaly and here we are seeing another, which may be even more drastic?
Indeed.
You've tried this in another thread, use personal attacks and then pretend to be offended when others do the same.
This has been in the deniers’ handbook since the initial draft.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Make the felled trees into building materials? particularly instead of e.g. Bricks that create CO2 in their manufacture.
I would put Peak Oil into that pot too. Consumption of oil has been exponential (apart from a couple of periods of supply-denial / price-ramps) so on that basis assuming 3.5% growth that would give us 20 years TOTAL from Peak Oil to No Oil
I'd like to leave it in the ground so that it is available for whatever is hard/impossible to do when supply becomes scarce, and to postpone/delay that date.
Swampgator
Active Member
Swampgator
Active Member
Swampgator
Active Member
As far as heeding to the experts, I do as well to some extent. We just have a different set of experts. I find Judith Curry and John Christy quite compelling. They must be because google puts skeptical science attacks against them at the top of their search results. You find Michael Mann and Cook, et al more compelling.
As a physician, you must surely know that what is today scientific consensus is often completely reversed upon further evidence. I remember being taught in pharmacy school that beta blockers were absolutely contraindicated in heart failure. That was the scientific consensus of people a lot smarter than me right?
Soon the consensus that NIDDM is a progressive, incurable disease will be upended, What will all of the endocrinologist experts do then? Recant and admit they were wrong? Quite doubtful.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Because they match the narrative you want to hear.
If those two scientists were correct and the other couple thousand were wrong it would be evident by now. Instead we have a long list of hypothetical alternative forcing explanations that have been squashed by evidence. Most damning of all, your chosen science skeptics have NEVER proposed, let alone offered any evidence of, a mechanism to offset the greenhouse gas effect.
Let me summarize the denialist arguments for you through the years:
1. The Earth is not getting warmer
2. The Earth may be getting warmer
3. The Earth is getting a little bit warmer
4. The Earth is getting warmer, but it will then get cooler
5. The Earth is getting warmer, good for us
6. The Earth warming is due to cosmic rays forcing
7. The Earth is getting warmer due to Volcano forcing
8. The Earth is getting warmer transient atmospheric condition forcings
9. The Earth is getting warmer due to rotations, tilts and sun activity forcings
There are more putative forcing explanations that have been debunked. One alternative forcing hypothesis after another, one debunking after another. The 'skeptic' track record is batting zero. And all the while they (and you) skirt the basic science of forcing from accumulating greenhouse gases.
A rational AGW skeptic who is not an idiot does not ignore the GHG effect. Instead they either (like Lindzen) propose a possible mechanism for heat loss (no evidence of it happening so far) or propose a heat storage locker somewhere on Earth (usually the ocean, but it is increasingly apparent even to them that is a bad idea.)
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Forty years ago I was taught that BB are contraindicated in acute decompensated heart failure.
That is no less true today. More to the point, the negative inotropic effects of BB are a basic science that no informed physician or physiologist disputes. Trade-offs change with time, contexts change with time. Physiology is for our purposes constant.
The connection ? The GHG effect is a fact. Deal with it, instead of hopping from one debunked forcing to another.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Instability in Antarctic ice projected to make sea level rise rapidly
Images of vanishing Arctic ice and mountain glaciers are jarring, but their potential contributions to sea level rise are no match for Antarctica's, even if receding southern ice is less eye-catching. Now, a study says that instability hidden within Antarctic ice is likely to accelerate its flow into the ocean and push sea level up at a more rapid pace than previously expected.
Images of vanishing Arctic ice and mountain glaciers are jarring, but their potential contributions to sea level rise are no match for Antarctica's, even if receding southern ice is less eye-catching. Now, a study says that instability hidden within Antarctic ice is likely to accelerate its flow into the ocean and push sea level up at a more rapid pace than previously expected.
For those interested in learning rather than just restating their rigid beliefs, here is why the idea that the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 will saturate is wrong:
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Now on to research. I wonder how many people here have real experience in scientific research. I have some. I saw pettiness as researchers fought over the best grad students. I also saw failed research backed by millions of dollars of money. The research NEVER attempted to fake up results. I saw egotistical scientist boast of their great "discoveries" just to be torn down by other scientists. One of my fondest memories is being at Eugene Wigner's house and listening to his brother-in-law, Paul Dirac, talk about magnetic monopoles. Dirac said it was a wonderful theory and very attractive but based on years of negative results he was almost certainly wrong. Yeah, I'm name dropping. NEVER did I see any grand conspiracy to skew results to get federal money.
Do you want to know how what happens when a scientist is wrong? Look at cold fusion. Everyone wants cold fusion to be real and to work. When it was reported there was lots of money put into it. The other scientists tried to replicate the results and they failed. That is what got reported. No one believed Fleischman and Pons were being deceitful. Rather they looked at their experiment and eventually decided mistakes had been made. Scientific research is very self correcting. If AGW wasn't real there would be a LOT of researchers trying to make names for themselves by coming out with negative reports.
It continues to amaze me how people accept the lies spewed by the oil companies but think the scientists are somehow engaged in a grand conspiracy to hide the truth. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. When valid objections to AGW hav been proposed they have been looked at seriously only to be found to be incorrect. People bring up modeling and all I see are people who haven't done modeling before. They understand nothing about how modeling works and about inaccuracies in modeling and the usefulness of modeling. My modeling is in semiconductors but I can tell you that all of you have used amazing devices designed using imperfect models.
I think my favorite climate denier was the Quora guy who told me chemistry wasn't a science and all of the science I learned in college was wrong because he knew more from his common sense. Well, common sense arguments are often wrong. The Zeno Effect isn't common sense but it is real. Quantum entanglement doesn't fit common sense either but it is also real.
OK, back to the posters on here explaining how they know more than everyone else.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Now on to research. I wonder how many people here have real experience in scientific research. I have some. I saw pettiness as researchers fought over the best grad students. I also saw failed research backed by millions of dollars of money. The research NEVER attempted to fake up results. I saw egotistical scientist boast of their great "discoveries" just to be torn down by other scientists. One of my fondest memories is being at Eugene Wigner's house and listening to his brother-in-law, Paul Dirac, talk about magnetic monopoles. Dirac said it was a wonderful theory and very attractive but based on years of negative results he was almost certainly wrong. Yeah, I'm name dropping. NEVER did I see any grand conspiracy to skew results to get federal money.
Do you want to know how what happens when a scientist is wrong? Look at cold fusion. Everyone wants cold fusion to be real and to work. When it was reported there was lots of money put into it. The other scientists tried to replicate the results and they failed. That is what got reported. No one believed Fleischman and Pons were being deceitful. Rather they looked at their experiment and eventually decided mistakes had been made. Scientific research is very self correcting. If AGW wasn't real there would be a LOT of researchers trying to make names for themselves by coming out with negative reports.
It continues to amaze me how people accept the lies spewed by the oil companies but think the scientists are somehow engaged in a grand conspiracy to hide the truth. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. When valid objections to AGW hav been proposed they have been looked at seriously only to be found to be incorrect. People bring up modeling and all I see are people who haven't done modeling before. They understand nothing about how modeling works and about inaccuracies in modeling and the usefulness of modeling. My modeling is in semiconductors but I can tell you that all of you have used amazing devices designed using imperfect models.
I think my favorite climate denier was the Quora guy who told me chemistry wasn't a science and all of the science I learned in college was wrong because he knew more from his common sense. Well, common sense arguments are often wrong. The Zeno Effect isn't common sense but it is real. Quantum entanglement doesn't fit common sense either but it is also real.
OK, back to the posters on here explaining how they know more than everyone else.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Sometimes reality can't be ignored... Even for Republicans
How Florida’s summer of slime turned Republicans into eco-warriors
How Florida’s summer of slime turned Republicans into eco-warriors
As the state’s environmental woes took a toll on businesses across Florida, the then US representative Ron DeSantis began telling voters he’d clean it all up if they elected him governor – and he won, in part on that promise. The early returns suggest he’s delivering. Despite earning a lifetime score of 2% on the League of Conservation Voters’ environmental scorecard during his six years in the House of Representatives, the Republican has proposed shifts from the pro-business (and pro-polluting) policies of his predecessor.
All this took place last August, during the summer that algae ate Florida. Cyanobacteria filled Lake Okeechobee, Florida’s largest lake, while another pollution-induced environmental hazard, red tide, crept up both of Florida’s coasts, reaching as far north as Daytona Beach. Tourists questioned whether it was safe to take a dip in Florida’s waters. Governor Rick Scott eventually declared a state of emergency. In a few short months, the Sunshine state’s algae crisis went from a rumor residents shrugged off to a top campaign issue in the 2018 election.
DeSantis also began to embrace the environment. His campaign platform included proposals to beef up funding for the state’s environmental agency and initiatives to restore and protect Florida’s waters. He talked about stopping algae-thick discharges from Lake Okeechobee. He opposed offshore drilling and sought solutions for the epidemic of red tide that littered Florida’s beaches with dead fish last year.
How Florida’s summer of slime turned Republicans into eco-warriors
How Florida’s summer of slime turned Republicans into eco-warriors
As the state’s environmental woes took a toll on businesses across Florida, the then US representative Ron DeSantis began telling voters he’d clean it all up if they elected him governor – and he won, in part on that promise. The early returns suggest he’s delivering. Despite earning a lifetime score of 2% on the League of Conservation Voters’ environmental scorecard during his six years in the House of Representatives, the Republican has proposed shifts from the pro-business (and pro-polluting) policies of his predecessor.
All this took place last August, during the summer that algae ate Florida. Cyanobacteria filled Lake Okeechobee, Florida’s largest lake, while another pollution-induced environmental hazard, red tide, crept up both of Florida’s coasts, reaching as far north as Daytona Beach. Tourists questioned whether it was safe to take a dip in Florida’s waters. Governor Rick Scott eventually declared a state of emergency. In a few short months, the Sunshine state’s algae crisis went from a rumor residents shrugged off to a top campaign issue in the 2018 election.
DeSantis also began to embrace the environment. His campaign platform included proposals to beef up funding for the state’s environmental agency and initiatives to restore and protect Florida’s waters. He talked about stopping algae-thick discharges from Lake Okeechobee. He opposed offshore drilling and sought solutions for the epidemic of red tide that littered Florida’s beaches with dead fish last year.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
And straight to hypocrisy again. Do you seriously believe you have any credibility to complain about ad hominem when you're repeatedly guilty of it in multiple threads?
This argument suggests that either you have more evidence than the body at large and are keeping it to yourself, or that you don’t believe in the scientific method. We know the former isn’t correct unless you own a private lab of some sort, so is there a reason we should ignore consensus building? Is it because you know more than the people who do this work daily? If so, would you consider meeting with them so that they can be enlightened as to what they’re missing, or do you think there is a vast conspiracy of falsehoods purposefully perpetrated across academia and industry, so they will ignore you?
It’s the worst argument against science. “Butter used to be good, then it was bad, and now it’s good again!” If you’re going to believe whatever you want despite the evidence because strong enough falsifying evidence may come to light, then we should return to being hunter gatherers and stop trying to expand our global knowledge. Currently we have full time scientists in academia, in government, and in industry (including petroleum) saying that they side with the consensus. You’re welcome to disagree but you have to understand that doing so makes you in the less informed minority and makes you more likely to be wrong. That’s just statistics. If I went to 80 doctors and they all told me I had skin cancer, but then I visited a naturopath, a spirit healer, and watched a YouTube dietician who told me I didn’t, I would be likely to make the wrong decision by gravitating to those “skeptics,” no matter how smart it made me feel to see through the “lies” of Big Medicine.
Similar threads
