- Thread starter
- #161
You saidWithout plowing through the whole thread, I believe I only concluded that you had no evidence after asking you several times to produce such evidence. What little you presented was post hoc ergo propter hoc, with no causal link shown.
By first principles the observed warming matches the warming that should be produced by the greenhouse effect acting on the increase in atmospheric CO2 and no other known mechanism for producing warming has been found responsible for more than trivial portions.Anyway . . . since you have no evidence that human activity is causing global warming, that said global warming is harmful, or that any sort of project funded by huge increases in taxes would change that, you really don’t have any support for your position.
Per both isotopic analysis and bookkeeping, the CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level was created by the combusition of fossil fuels and humans are the only ones burning fossil fuels.
I have told you this repeatedly and it was certainly available in the documents to which I linked. How do YOU arrive at the conclusion that I have shown you no evidence that humans are responsible for the observed warming?
You brought up "no climate change". I only used the term in my counter that science can produce accurate predictions, even of the very unlikely situation you brought up.I can’t imagine conditions that would support a prediction that climate will not change. But maybe my imagination is not as great as yours. Can you provide an example?
Climate science is not based on unsupported conjectures. It is based on physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics and other fields as well as absolute mountains of empirical evidence from all over the planet.Which is the basis of all “climate science.”
You imply that no apocalyptic prediction has ever come true. That is false.No, in spite of the fact that there have been hundreds, perhaps, thousands, of apocalyptic predictions that never came true, there is still the theoretical possibility that an apocalyptic prediction will come true.
"apocalyptic: resembling the biblical Apocalyse" --Oxford Languages Dictionary, emphasis mineIn fact, if there ever is an apocalypse, surely any surviving historians will be able to look back and find a prediction that matches the actual event out of the thousands of predictions that have been made.
Do you actually want to continue to equate evidence-based, scientific predictions with visions, mythology, supernatural fanstasies and outright fraud? Do you actually think that is a supportable position?If I’m not mistaken, that is exactly how Jeanie Dixon became famous as a psychic. Among the thousands of predictions being made by self describe psychics, during the 50s and 60s, she accurately predicted the assassination of John F Kennedy.
Don't bother.I’ll check on the name. I guess there would be two explanations for that accurate prediction. One) Jeannie Dixon had psychic powers or two)If enough predictions are made, eventually, one of them will come true. Which one would you pick in that particular case?
On what do you believe the conclusions of the IPCC are based? Are you familiar with the charter of the IPCC? Do you understand what it is they actually do?No, I do not. And I found an interesting article that posited that the predictions of the Aztec mathematician/astronomers were not actually based on any revelatory vision either, but on something completely different. Very interesting but I can’t post it on my phone. I’ll get it for you later later this evening.
Do nuclear physicists experiment with nuclear weapons these days? Do cosmologists create universes in their laboratories? Do economists muck with the world's economy to find out how it works? Did Stephen Hawking have a black hole in a test tube? How about mathematics? Do mathematicians do a lot of experiments?Neither are the “climate scientists.” The scientific method requires experimentation.
That is false. I have described for you a simple experiment validating the greenhouse effect and described the empirical observations and analysis that provide extremely strong evidence that AGW is valid. The vast majority of climate scientists and scientists from all other fields accept AGW as a valid description of the current behavior of the Earth's climate. Do you really think that would be the case were there NO evidence supporting it?No experiment that you have described shows that there is evidence that any rise and global , if such a rise exist, is caused by human activity.
The link is the greenhouse effect and the demonstrated origin of the CO2 we have put into our air. The link is the inability to demonstrate ANY other cause for the observed warming. Are you suggesting that the Earth has NOT warmed? Do you really think you have the technical wherewithal to claim thousands of climate scientists can't accomplish the simplest task of their entire field?You can prove that human industrial activity has increased in the last two centuries. You can show that on modern instruments compared to much older instruments, higher temperatures are shown. You cannot show any calls or link between the two.
Do YOU know precisely how smart the Aztec mathematicians were? Can you explain SPECIFICALLY how you are measuring their intelligence and mine? Your query was simply bullshit and I sure hope you know it.Other than the physics and astronomy courses, I took to get my undergraduate degree, I have not extensively studied those fields. See how easy it is for me to admit to a shortcoming? Have you noticed how difficult it is for you to even say that your mathematical ability does not equal those of the greatest Aztec mathematicians?
You claim that the topic of global warming - a huge field involving massive amounts of research, communication, documentation - is all the product of alarmists and that this conclusion of yours requires no understanding... no examination of the facts? Are you kidding?My fields are educational, psychology, and special education. For both of these, I have studied a lot of human thought process, particularly human motivation. Not that I need it to understand the motivation of the global warming alarmists. Those should be pretty obvious to even the untrained person.
Quite obviously, no, you are not.For my advanced agrees, I study, statistics extensively, so I am fully able to understand the lack of scientific merit behind most “studies” of warming.
I don't know what you meant to say, but people SHOULD believe accurate predictions. And you've skipped over the point. That false predictions were made in the past does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute today's evidence-based, scientific predictions.No, but it does mean that people can be led to believe in accurate predictions.
And what "power" do you believe the world's climate scientists possess and in what "specific social order" and how is that power maintained by their research activities? And after you've failed to answer that question, perhaps you can explain how, precisely, false research involving the work of thousands of individuals from every nation on the planet is all coordinated (since it must all describe the same falsehood) with no flaw appearing and no confessions heard from any of the thousands of required participants risking their lifelong careers to maintain that all-important "power".Especially if those making the predictions use them to maintain their power within a specific social order.
They wouldn't be hard to find because I was talking about YOU and the arguments you've been attempting to make here, including all your linked articles. You have NO rational reason to reject the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies that support the validity of AGW theory. None.Those would certainly not be hard to find. The popular press enjoy publishing stories, who steam is basically “non-liberals are stoopid! Often, the “studies“ they present are nothing more than opinion pieces disguised as science.
It is not popular journalism that has convinced me that YOU are just not very intelligent on this topic. You've done that all on your own. And you've been VERY convincing.So it is certainly understandable, that a person who reads a lot of popular “journalism“ would believe that anyone who doubts the apocalyptic predictions of the climate scientist, are just not very intelligent.
Last edited: