Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

[del]

It's a sad, lonely little thread this, isn't it?

Reading through there seems to be far, far more references to politics than there are to science - which I think says it all, really. Whereas we now see even most conservative politicians (i.e. Sakorzy, Merkel, Key, McCain) utterly convinced of the science of climate change, the people we can not convince with science are the diehard right wingers.

Put it this way - at the stage someone can explain why 99% of North America's glaciers are in retreat, and at a rate of decline double that of 1950 - a fact I believe there is total consensus on amongst scientists - then perhaps we'll be able to move on with the discussion.

pssst, consensus ain't science


see galileo et al

 

[Sodafin]

pssst, consensus ain't science
:

No, but personally if I'm looking at a science question, I'd rather be agreeing with Stephen Hawking that disagreeing with him, if you get my meaning.

There is consensus that smoking causes cancer, that gravity exists and that HIV is linked to aids, is there not?

And would you say that this consensus exists largely because essentially all scientists agree on those topics?

Then it may be worth asking yourself what it means that essentially all scientists will tell you that 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat.

 

[Sodafin]

Appeals to authority don't fly here.

.

Which is another way of saying that you do not have a scientific argument to present, is it not?

I am claiming that 99% of North Americas glaciers are in retreat, and I have the scientific surveys here to back that up.

If you have a counter case - let's see it.

 

[Oddball]

There is consensus that smoking causes cancer, that gravity exists and that HIV is linked to aids, is there not?

Non sequiturs don't fly here, either.

Then it may be worth asking yourself what it means that essentially all scientists will tell you that 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat.

Again, correlation doesn't equal causation. And I'm interested in where you got that 95% number.

 

[Oddball]

Appeals to authority don't fly here.

.

Which is another way of saying that you do not have a scientific argument to present, is it not?

I am claiming that 99% of North Americas glaciers are in retreat, and I have the scientific surveys here to back that up.

If you have a counter case - let's see it.

No, it's a way of pointing out the use of flawed logic in order to attempt to prove a point.

Try going through this list of logical fallacies before trying any more of them: Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate. The face you no longer fall upon will be your own.

 

[Sodafin]

Dude -

The 95% figure is the one quoted by, amongst others, Anthony Arendt, of the University Alaska Fairbanks Geophysics unit, whose research in this area is of staggering scale, and which I am happy to post - or you can find it online. Reports of their research appeared in most major news services.

Their research is one of a global cluster of some 30 or 40 studies which have concluded that 99% of North American glaciers are in retreat, against a global average of 95%.

 

[Sodafin]

Dude -

My only interest here is in the science. Posts on any other subject will be ignored.

 

[Sodafin]

Do check the link below, as it has a lot of info. We can think look at specific studies, such as those by Arendt conducted in Alaska.

Wikipedia gives a good overview of the topic here:

Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. However, since 1980 a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions will have potential impact on water supplies. The retreat of mountain glaciers, notably in western North America, Asia, the Alps, Indonesia and Africa, and tropical and subtropical regions of South America, has been used to provide qualitative evidence for the rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century.(IPCC2) (NSIDC) The recent substantial retreat and an acceleration of the rate of retreat since 1995 of a number of key outlet glaciers of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, may foreshadow a rise in sea level, having a potentially dramatic effect on coastal regions worldwide.

Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oddball]

Dude -

My only interest here is in the science. Posts on any other subject will be ignored.

Use flawed logic and trumped-up unverifiable numbers to prop up bad science and you're going to get called on it.

Deal with it.

P.S...Correlation still doesn't equal causation....That's what's known as "non sequitur".

 

[Wry Catcher]

I wonder what motivates the 'dudes' to so vehemently argue (essentially) for polluters? I'm not a scientist nor have I put in the time to study geological data or other obscure and arcane records. I know emperically car exhaust is harmful to living things, and SMOG isn't nice to breath. I know the ice pack up north is melting, that our seas will rise as a result and that large peices of Antarctica have broken off and set adrift. I know in the past industry has choose to fuck up our environment to increase the bottom line and that our rivers, the great lakes and our oceans are the most profitable dumps for those who don't give a shit for 'we the people' or our kids or theirs.
So what motivates the 'dudes'? Greed, some pathology to stand out from the crowd no matter the consequence or are they simply stupid?

 

[Oddball]

Non sequiturs still don't fly, pisswillie.

If CO2 is a pollutant, I suggest you shut off your computer and quit breathing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Non sequiturs still don't fly, pisswillie.

If CO2 is a pollutant, I suggest you shut off your computer and quit breathing.

Non Sequitur:
1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

A proof is a conclusion; axioms, theorems, postitulates, etc. are offered as part of an effort to determine a fact.
'dude' arguments are non sequiturs, the dog ate my homework and such are idiotgrams; non rational sarcastic tools for those who hold opinions based on bias and ignorance.

CO2 is only one (1) pollutant, cherry picking one is further evidence of your dishonesty.
[now it's time to call me a name, 'dude']

 

[Oddball]

Right...You vapid claim that I'm taking the side of "polluters" is non sequitur on not one front, but two:

1) I cannot control what anyone else says, does or thinks.

2) Claiming an essential trace atmospheric element as "pollution", in order to make the overall stretch of illogic.

Your equally pedantic lecture on axioms, theorems, postulates, etc. is also irrelevant, making it a trifecta of non sequitur.

Good job....Now shut off your computer and stop breathing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Right...You vapid claim that I'm taking the side of "polluters" is non sequitur on not one front, but two:

1) I cannot control what anyone else says, does or thinks.

2) Claiming an essential trace atmospheric element as "pollution", in order to make the overall stretch of illogic.

Your equally pedantic lecture on axioms, theorems, postulates, etc. is also irrelevant, making it a trifecta of non sequitur.

Good job....Now shut off your computer and stop breathing.

Thanks for sharing, oh, and I appreciate the fact that you have (at best?) an ability to use a thesaurus. Sadly it escapes you that your use of words is clearly pedantic, while my use of terms descriptive for the debate at hand are instructive - at least for those unwilling to remain willfully ignorant.

 

[Sodafin]

Dude -

I am happy to be able to bring you up to speed on this.

C02 - like Vitamin D - is normal and natural only in normal natural quantities. The issue here is not the presence of C02, but it's concentration.

And yes, I can back this up with scientific analysis if you wish.

 

[Sodafin]

Dude -

My only interest here is in the science. Posts on any other subject will be ignored.

Use flawed logic and trumped-up unverifiable numbers to prop up bad science and you're going to get called on it.

Deal with it.

P.S...Correlation still doesn't equal causation....That's what's known as "non sequitur".

Not only is it verifiable - it is unchallenged.

Please look at the Wikipedia overview of the science posted, and if you would like to look at the actual science, let me know and I will post it.

Causation is not the issue here - let's establish what we know is happening first, and then you can tell me why you think it is happening.

btw - Please stick to the topic.

 

[del]

I wonder what motivates the 'dudes' to so vehemently argue (essentially) for polluters? I'm not a scientist nor have I put in the time to study geological data or other obscure and arcane records. I know emperically car exhaust is harmful to living things, and SMOG isn't nice to breath. I know the ice pack up north is melting, that our seas will rise as a result and that large peices of Antarctica have broken off and set adrift. I know in the past industry has choose to fuck up our environment to increase the bottom line and that our rivers, the great lakes and our oceans are the most profitable dumps for those who don't give a shit for 'we the people' or our kids or theirs.
So what motivates the 'dudes'? Greed, some pathology to stand out from the crowd no matter the consequence or are they simply stupid?

and yet, no one is arguing in favor of pollution.

i wonder what pathology forces you to demonize those who disagree with you?

beyond the obvious mental limitations.



i

 

[Oddball]

Dude -

My only interest here is in the science. Posts on any other subject will be ignored.

Use flawed logic and trumped-up unverifiable numbers to prop up bad science and you're going to get called on it.

Deal with it.

P.S...Correlation still doesn't equal causation....That's what's known as "non sequitur".

Not only is it verifiable - it is unchallenged.

Please look at the Wikipedia overview of the science posted, and if you would like to look at the actual science, let me know and I will post it.

Causation is not the issue here - let's establish what we know is happening first, and then you can tell me why you think it is happening.

btw - Please stick to the topic.

Wikipedia doesn't *ahem* cut any ice here, either.

The receding glaciers are generally invoked as evidence of the alleged anthropogenic cause. If you don't know that, then then you haven't engaged in many of these conversations. Moreover, there are glaciers that have been expanding over recent years, yet they almost never receive any mention by the warmist doomsayers.

Growing Glaciers

It's a lot easier to stick to the topic when you don't use flawed logic and sources that can be edited by anyone who wants to take the time to do so.

 

[Sodafin]

and yet, no one is arguing in favor of pollution.

i

No, they are arguing in favour of technologies which produce pollution.

Technologies which are outdated, inefficient and by and large easily replaceable by technologies which are cleaner, cheaper and will cost consumers less.

Does anyone here seriously think any western country will be using coal in 2100?

 

[Oddball]

Dude -

I am happy to be able to bring you up to speed on this.

C02 - like Vitamin D - is normal and natural only in normal natural quantities. The issue here is not the presence of C02, but it's concentration.

And yes, I can back this up with scientific analysis if you wish.

I'm plenty "up to speed" on the subject, thank you very much.

The scientific analyses (the controllable and reproducable ones anyways) concerning CO2 concentrations are done in terms of a closed system, not the context of a dynamic evolving ecosystem, with more variables and compensatory mechanisms than can be numbered or accounted for. Computer models are of ZERO merit, as they cannot possibly take every variable into account and are only as perfect as the imperfect people who write their codes and set their parameters.


Increasing the carbon content from .03% to .04% isn't enough to alloy iron into steel....I'm pretty well boned up on basic statistical probabilities as well.