This simple statement is completely false. A couple of weeks ago I asked you to say where all that extra CO2 came from, if not us. You didn't answer, and I bet you won't answer now.
-
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
mspohr
Well-Known Member
David Attenborough: polluting planet may become as reviled as slavery
David Attenborough: polluting planet may become as reviled as slavery
The attitude of young people towards tackling the environmental crisis is “a source of great hope”, David Attenborough has told MPs, as he predicted that polluting the planet would soon provoke as much abhorrence as slavery.
He said: “The most encouraging thing that I see, of course, is that the electors of tomorrow are already making themselves and their voices very, very clear. And that is a source of great comfort in a way, but also the justification, the reality, that these young people are recognising that their world is the future.
“I’m OK, and all of us here are OK, because we don’t face the problems that are coming. But the problems in the next 30 years are really major problems that are going to cause social unrest, and great changes in the way that we live, and what we eat. It’s going to happen.”
David Attenborough: polluting planet may become as reviled as slavery
The attitude of young people towards tackling the environmental crisis is “a source of great hope”, David Attenborough has told MPs, as he predicted that polluting the planet would soon provoke as much abhorrence as slavery.
He said: “The most encouraging thing that I see, of course, is that the electors of tomorrow are already making themselves and their voices very, very clear. And that is a source of great comfort in a way, but also the justification, the reality, that these young people are recognising that their world is the future.
“I’m OK, and all of us here are OK, because we don’t face the problems that are coming. But the problems in the next 30 years are really major problems that are going to cause social unrest, and great changes in the way that we live, and what we eat. It’s going to happen.”
The idea that a scientific consensus will get overturned is just wishful thinking at its worst. It has happened but it is rarer than you might think. In the philosophy of science there is the principle of superposition. It says that any new theory must give the same answer as the old theory in those cases where the old theory was shown to be correct. As an example, relativity didn't reverse Newton's Laws. Relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics when speeds are far below the speed of light. The same thing happens in modeling. Models get adjusted and refined and they keep getting more accurate. They rarely reverse the results of earlier models. Almost always they refine the earlier results. Unfortunately, as we refine climate models, they are telling us things are worse than we thought.
I want to return to the idea that there is some grand conspiracy by climatologists to spew incorrect data. This is right up there with believing we never landed on the moon or that the earth is flat. This is little different than the tobacco wars. In the future almost all people will admit that the scientists were right. Then again, we still have people who smoke because they believe the science doesn't apply to them.
I want to return to the idea that there is some grand conspiracy by climatologists to spew incorrect data. This is right up there with believing we never landed on the moon or that the earth is flat. This is little different than the tobacco wars. In the future almost all people will admit that the scientists were right. Then again, we still have people who smoke because they believe the science doesn't apply to them.
Correct. Science is not a house of cards. To overturn something means that you have to also overturn the underlying principles that the law or theory was built upon. It has happened, but it's exceedingly rare and most examples are before 1900. (Example: Louis Pasteur, germ theory and vaccines vs. miasma and spontaneous generation.)
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Right.
Find me a reputable scientist who thinks that the underlying principles of the greenhouse effect will turn out to be rubbish. The problem here is that denialists like jrad and the pharmacist do not understand the basic science of the greenhouse effect, cannot place it in context, and prefer religion and politics as foundations for their opinions.
Swampgator
Active Member
Strawman.
My point was that anyone who claims that science is settled by consensus does not understand the scientific method.
Swampgator
Active Member
Your attempts to diminish my intellect or arguments based on my degree/profession only shows the weakness of yours.
No, your point that was consensus can be reversed, therefore consensus doesn't have merit. At least, that's how it reads. Maybe you should clarify your position on the consensus instead of dismissing my interpretation as a straw man.
Swampgator
Active Member
No that's exactly what I mean. I do not and will not accept things as true simply because there is a consensus.
Can you prove your consensus claims? If all you have is Cook et al then go away.
Great, then I didn't build a straw man. Can you answer my questions from the previous post, then?
Are you suggesting I have to prove that there is a consensus, or that I have to prove the claims of the consensus? Perhaps you and I should do the live video that @jrad6515 was too scared to do. I'll include some members of the community that have built the consensus. Is that interesting to you?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Specifically, a consensus of the the best scientific minds in the world.
That is not proof, so you you choose to rely on your pharmacy education instead.
Insane
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
LOL. If a pool filter is discharging 1000000 gph and you start start adding 1gph the pool will start to overflow... how is the water flow through the filter relevant????? The fact you're adding %0.001 of the flow is irrelevant. It's the water you're adding that's causing the pool to overflow.
There's a continuous flow of carbon around the biosphere. It's mostly in balance. It's the ~35B tons we're adding per year that are the problem....
And it's because of garbage positions like this I have slightly more respect for flat-earthers than AGW deniers. So.... so..... you're suggesting that CO2 levels maintained at ~280ppm for hundreds of years and the sudden spike up just as our fools fuel addiction kicks into high gear AND the rate of increase tracks with the rate of our use of fools fuel was..... what....... just a coincidence????? Really????? That's not even remotely a logical position....
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
My estimation of your intellect is diminished by your posts,
and your arguments are rubbish because you lack the intellect, education, and training.
Stop trying to play climate scientist; and please get educated enough to understand what the real experts are telling us.
Learn about the carbon cycle
Learn about the greenhouse effect
Learn about forcings
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
In a way it is, but not how you understand the process.
The scientific method is iterated until the leaders in the field stop testing the hypothesis because they think it is a waste of time to find the same results. Occasionally results from other observations come along that put in doubt the accepted hypothesis, and then the cycle begins again.
No mathematician spends their life doubting 1 + 1 = 2
No physical scientist doubts the spectrometry of CO2. If you had the tools and the skills you could spend your life checking and rechecking the spectrometric results published by countless others of CO2 but no scientist of merit would pay any attention to your work.
When you point out that past peaks of CO2 lag peak warming and conclude that CO2 is not a cause of global warming, you are ignoring basic spectrometry. You might as well be arguing that a circle can be squared or the Earth is flat.
Last edited:
YOU are the chickensh*t who has repeatedly dodged my challenge to post your "proof" of AGW where we all can see it. What a fraud you are. You should be ashamed of yourself but I'm sure you are not. Come on, lay it out there if you have it (you don't). Put up or shut up, coward.
I've explained this over and over. Get on with me live and we'll go through it. It's going to take a few hours, that's just how it works. It's a huge body of evidence. How am I the coward when I'm willing to meet face to face and you're not? Hilarious. Also, don't you complain about people in climate change discussions "devolving into name calling," yet here you are doing it over and over again? Hmm, where have I seen this behavior before?
Similar threads
