Why AGW must be wrong.

[SpidermanTuba]

I've assembled a list of facts which disprove AGW:

1) The Earth's temperature has been influenced by natural factors in the past. Everyone with a 2nd grade education knows that if the temperature of a system can be influenced by natural forces, its physically impossible for man made forces to affect it.

2) The Sun is hot. Look at it. its right there. its really hot.

3) grapes grew in England in the medieval warm period. Nevermind the fact they grow there now as well, that's irrelevant.

4) Cavemen didn't have SUV's, therefore AGW MUST be wrong.

5) Other planets in the solar system are also warming (nevermind which ones), and since their climates and atmospheres are exactly the same as Earth's - but they have no people - obviously AGW is wrong. Warming on other planets MUST be caused by the exact same things causing warming on Earth, despite any evidence to the contrary.

6) Other scientists in other fields, such as Paul Ehlrich, have made doomsday predictions about other things, that did not come to pass. Therefore, AGW cannot be true. In fact, any scientific theory which predicts something bad might happen cannot be true.


Does this about sum it up?

 

[Meister]

I've assembled a list of facts which disprove AGW:

1) The Earth's temperature has been influenced by natural factors in the past. Everyone with a 2nd grade education knows that if the temperature of a system can be influenced by natural forces, its physically impossible for man made forces to affect it.

2) The Sun is hot. Look at it. its right there. its really hot.

3) grapes grew in England in the medieval warm period. Nevermind the fact they grow there now as well, that's irrelevant.

4) Cavemen didn't have SUV's, therefore AGW MUST be wrong.


Does this about sum it up?

Your getting close....you forgot that other planets in our solar system also have warmed up. Or, did you forget that one?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I've assembled a list of facts which disprove AGW:

1) The Earth's temperature has been influenced by natural factors in the past. Everyone with a 2nd grade education knows that if the temperature of a system can be influenced by natural forces, its physically impossible for man made forces to affect it.

2) The Sun is hot. Look at it. its right there. its really hot.

3) grapes grew in England in the medieval warm period. Nevermind the fact they grow there now as well, that's irrelevant.

4) Cavemen didn't have SUV's, therefore AGW MUST be wrong.


Does this about sum it up?

Your getting close....you forgot that other planets in our solar system also have warmed up. Or, did you forget that one?

I sure did, let me add it really quick

 

[Oddball]

I've assembled a list of facts which disprove AGW:

1) The Earth's temperature has been influenced by natural factors in the past. Everyone with a 2nd grade education knows that if the temperature of a system can be influenced by natural forces, its physically impossible for man made forces to affect it.

2) The Sun is hot. Look at it. its right there. its really hot.

3) grapes grew in England in the medieval warm period. Nevermind the fact they grow there now as well, that's irrelevant.

4) Cavemen didn't have SUV's, therefore AGW MUST be wrong.

5) Other planets in the solar system are also warming (nevermind which ones), and since their climates and atmospheres are exactly the same as Earth's - but they have no people - obviously AGW is wrong. Warming on other planets MUST be caused by the exact same things causing warming on Earth, despite any evidence to the contrary.


Does this about sum it up?

Those are a few.

Then, you can add that AGW science fiction is not:

• Physically reproducible on demand and in the context of a virtually infinitely variable and flexible ecosystem.

• Has no physical control model, against which to make physically verifiable comparisons.

• Not falsifiable for all other plausible explanations.

• All of the above have been traditional acid tests for "settled science" for centuries.

The semantics are all wrong:

• "Consensus" is a political process, not scientific proof.

• X, Y, or Z could happen is speculation, not science.

• "We're 90% sure...." is equally and unscientifically speculative.

Although there's lots more, that's a good start.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I've assembled a list of facts which disprove AGW:

1) The Earth's temperature has been influenced by natural factors in the past. Everyone with a 2nd grade education knows that if the temperature of a system can be influenced by natural forces, its physically impossible for man made forces to affect it.

2) The Sun is hot. Look at it. its right there. its really hot.

3) grapes grew in England in the medieval warm period. Nevermind the fact they grow there now as well, that's irrelevant.

4) Cavemen didn't have SUV's, therefore AGW MUST be wrong.

5) Other planets in the solar system are also warming (nevermind which ones), and since their climates and atmospheres are exactly the same as Earth's - but they have no people - obviously AGW is wrong. Warming on other planets MUST be caused by the exact same things causing warming on Earth, despite any evidence to the contrary.


Does this about sum it up?

It about sums up the straw man arguments put up by the AGW evangelists, yes.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I've assembled a list of facts which disprove AGW:

1) The Earth's temperature has been influenced by natural factors in the past. Everyone with a 2nd grade education knows that if the temperature of a system can be influenced by natural forces, its physically impossible for man made forces to affect it.

2) The Sun is hot. Look at it. its right there. its really hot.

3) grapes grew in England in the medieval warm period. Nevermind the fact they grow there now as well, that's irrelevant.

4) Cavemen didn't have SUV's, therefore AGW MUST be wrong.

5) Other planets in the solar system are also warming (nevermind which ones), and since their climates and atmospheres are exactly the same as Earth's - but they have no people - obviously AGW is wrong. Warming on other planets MUST be caused by the exact same things causing warming on Earth, despite any evidence to the contrary.


Does this about sum it up?

Those are a few.

Then, you can add that AGW science fiction is not:

• Physically reproducible on demand and in the context of a virtually infinitely variable and flexible ecosystem.

• Has no physical control model, against which to make physically verifiable comparisons.

• Not falsifiable for all other plausible explanations.

The semantics are all wrong:

• "Consensus" is a political process, not scientific proof.

• X, Y, or Z could happen is speculation, not science.

• "We're 90% sure...." is equally and unscientifically speculative.

Although there's lots more, that's a good start.

Let me rephrase your descriptions to make it easier to understand:

1) since we don't have another planet earth exactly like ours that we can conduct experiments with, it is physically impossible to know ANYTHING about the climate (except of course that climate experts are wrong). Its a really complex system, too, and everyone knows science is useless for understanding complex systems. Its so complex there are an infinite number of variables (even though there's a finite number of particles in the system - don't worry about that, just trust me, its infinite!)

2) Just because 100 years ago Arrhenius predicted AGW would happen if man continued to produce greenhouse gases - and it happened - doesn't mean AGW is falsifiable. I actually don't know what 'falsifiable' even means, its just a fancy word I read on an anti-AGW blog somewhere.

3) All science that is not 100% sure is 100% useless. I have no idea what the U.S. Government is doing using the laws of the unproven THEORY of general relativity to make the GPS system work right - its stupid.

 

[Oddball]

2) Just because 100 years ago Arrhenius predicted AGW would happen if man continued to produce greenhouse gases - and it happened - doesn't mean AGW is falsifiable. I actually don't know what 'falsifiable' even means, its just a fancy word I read on an anti-AGW blog somewhere.

Your lack of knowledge of what words mean is your problem.

"Falsifiable" means that you can positively explain away all other possibilities via the Socratic method (i.e. asking questions as to what else could account for the given phenomena).

That someone 100 years ago guessed that temperatures might rise and speculated as to why is of no more scientific merit than a Nostradamus quatrain.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

"Falsifiable" means that you can positively explain away all other possibilities via the Socratic method (i.e. asking questions as to what else could account for the given phenomena).

No it doesn't. Falsifiability means there is a logical possibility that something can be shown to be false by experiment OR observation. You really don't have a fucking clue, do you?

That someone 100 years ago guessed that temperatures might rise and speculated as to why is of no more scientific merit than a Nostradamus quatrain.

He didn't guess. You haven't even read the paper I'm talking about. You're clueless. The same as the rest of the anti-science crowd.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

anti-science crowd.

 

[Xenophon]

Well, those damn Vikings and their industrial polution heated the earth so much that Greenland had trees and foliage a thousand years ago and they had a colony there that is now under ice...oh wait, they didn't have industry a thousand years ago.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well, those damn Vikings and their industrial polution heated the earth so much that Greenland had trees and foliage a thousand years ago and they had a colony there that is now under ice...oh wait, they didn't have industry a thousand years ago.

Greenland still has trees and foliage.

 

[Meister]

anti-science crowd.

It's his indoctrination at LSU, he can't help it, MM

 

[Oddball]

Golly...Only took you eight posts to get down to the standard recriminations and invective!

"Falsifiable" means that you can positively explain away all other possibilities via the Socratic method (i.e. asking questions as to what else could account for the given phenomena).

No it doesn't. Falsifiability means there is a logical possibility that something can be shown to be false by experiment OR observation. You really don't have a fucking clue, do you?

Somebody else help out here....Didn't I pretty much say the same thing in other words?

That someone 100 years ago guessed that temperatures might rise and speculated as to why is of no more scientific merit than a Nostradamus quatrain.

He didn't guess. You haven't even read the paper I'm talking about. You're clueless. The same as the rest of the anti-science crowd.

How did the predictions of Malthus, J.K. Galbraith and Paul Ehrlich work out?...They had equally "scientific" guesses as to what was supposed to happen in the future and all were monumentally wrong. Lest we fail to mention Y2K, the Red Scare, ancient religious nuts who claimed that Halley's comet was a harbinger of imminent doom....?

 

[Richard-H]

There is no way of telling for sure if GW is being caused by mankind, accelerated by mankind or if it's just a natural phenomenon.

But, by weighing probabilities and consequences we may be able to find a logical conclusion:

Probabilty - All reasonable scientific thought (i.e. deductive reasoning as opposed to the scientific method - since data that absolutely proves or disproves GW is not possible to obtain) indicates that, most probably, mankind is either causing or accelerating global warming.

Consequences of GW:
- A small increase in the temperature of the earth will cause both coastal and inland flooding, a devastating draught in the equatorial and tropical and semi-tropical regions of the world, a severe increase in the number and severity of storms globally. It will also cause the temperate and polar regions to greatly improve climatically and agriculturally. At the same time the Amazon Jungle will most probably be destroyed or severely recede causing a reduction the the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

This reduction in Oxygen will cause human brains to function on the level of idiots bringing to fluition the effects seen in the movie 'Idiocracy'. So politically and socially there won't be much change.

-A second consequence is that there will be enough warming to cause an thermal avalaunche - resulting in the near extermination of the human race. Only Antarctica will be inhabitable - start buying land there now!

Of course it may be true that no matter what we do, it won't make a difference, but it also may. Now if we take actions to reduce our carbon admissions, regardless of the GW question the consequences are:

Cleaner Air.
Cheaper energy costs.
Energy independance.
More efficient and lower cost industrial systems
A large number of big corporations will be forced to make investments in renovating their energy systems which will not pay off for a number of years.
Many of the current energy companies will either be forced to adapt or run out of business.
Tens of thousands of new jobs will be created.
America will become the world leader of a new industry.
A lot of rich people will get a lot richer by investing in nuclear power

But the biggest reason for NOT acting to stop global warming is that if we DO act and IF global warming IS successfully stopped, there'd be no pproof that it was ever a threat and the Republicans will FOR ALL TIME, BITCH ENDLESSLY SAYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS A COMPLETE FRAUD AND THAT THE STEPS TAKEN WERE COMPLETELY UNNECCESARY.
(Kinda like the Bird FLU).

Anyway, simple logic dictates that any intelligent person, rather than withstand the endless BULLSHIT that is bound to spew forth from the REPUBLICANS AD INFINITUM, would conclude that we SHOULD NOT take any actions to stop global warming and that instead we should all quietly invest in land in the Antarctic.

Just don't take a sub-prime mortgage on it!

 

[Oddball]

Those are a few.

Then, you can add that AGW science fiction is not:

• Physically reproducible on demand and in the context of a virtually infinitely variable and flexible ecosystem.

• Has no physical control model, against which to make physically verifiable comparisons.

• Not falsifiable for all other plausible explanations.

• All of the above have been traditional acid tests for "settled science" for centuries.

The semantics are all wrong:

• "Consensus" is a political process, not scientific proof.

• X, Y, or Z could happen is speculation, not science.

• "We're 90% sure...." is equally and unscientifically speculative.

Although there's lots more, that's a good start.

..... You really don't have a fucking clue, do you?..... You're clueless. The same as the rest of the anti-science crowd.

I knew I could come up with another in short order:

Whenever confronted with the mayriad of plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face reasoned grounds for why AGW science fiction fails the smell test, the true believers abandon the avenue of logic and go for the low road of derision.

 

[Oddball]

But the biggest reason for NOT acting to stop global warming is that if we DO act and IF global warming IS successfully stopped, there'd be no pproof that it was ever a threat and the Republicans will FOR ALL TIME, BITCH ENDLESSLY SAYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS A COMPLETE FRAUD AND THAT THE STEPS TAKEN WERE COMPLETELY UNNECCESARY.
(Kinda like the Bird FLU).

Anyway, simple logic dictates that any intelligent person, rather than withstand the endless BULLSHIT that is bound to spew forth from the REPUBLICANS AD INFINITUM, would conclude that we SHOULD NOT take any actions to stop global warming and that instead we should all quietly invest in land in the Antarctic.

See: Strawman and Pascal's wager...Also, decidedly NOT scientific.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

There is no way of telling for sure if GW is being caused by mankind, accelerated by mankind or if it's just a natural phenomenon.

But, by weighing probabilities and consequences we may be able to find a logical conclusion:

Probabilty - All reasonable scientific thought (i.e. deductive reasoning as opposed to the scientific method - since data that absolutely proves or disproves GW is not possible to obtain) indicates that, most probably, mankind is either causing or accelerating global warming.

Consequences of GW:
- A small increase in the temperature of the earth will cause both coastal and inland flooding, a devastating draught in the equatorial and tropical and semi-tropical regions of the world, a severe increase in the number and severity of storms globally. It will also cause the temperate and polar regions to greatly improve climatically and agriculturally. At the same time the Amazon Jungle will most probably be destroyed or severely recede causing a reduction the the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

This reduction in Oxygen will cause human brains to function on the level of idiots bringing to fluition the effects seen in the movie 'Idiocracy'. So politically and socially there won't be much change.

-A second consequence is that there will be enough warming to cause an thermal avalaunche - resulting in the near extermination of the human race. Only Antarctica will be inhabitable - start buying land there now!

Of course it may be true that no matter what we do, it won't make a difference, but it also may. Now if we take actions to reduce our carbon admissions, regardless of the GW question the consequences are:

Cleaner Air.
Cheaper energy costs.
Energy independance.
More efficient and lower cost industrial systems
A large number of big corporations will be forced to make investments in renovating their energy systems which will not pay off for a number of years.
Many of the current energy companies will either be forced to adapt or run out of business.
Tens of thousands of new jobs will be created.
America will become the world leader of a new industry.
A lot of rich people will get a lot richer by investing in nuclear power

But the biggest reason for NOT acting to stop global warming is that if we DO act and IF global warming IS successfully stopped, there'd be no pproof that it was ever a threat and the Republicans will FOR ALL TIME, BITCH ENDLESSLY SAYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS A COMPLETE FRAUD AND THAT THE STEPS TAKEN WERE COMPLETELY UNNECCESARY.
(Kinda like the Bird FLU).

Anyway, simple logic dictates that any intelligent person, rather than withstand the endless BULLSHIT that is bound to spew forth from the REPUBLICANS AD INFINITUM, would conclude that we SHOULD NOT take any actions to stop global warming and that instead we should all quietly invest in land in the Antarctic.

Just don't take a sub-prime mortgage on it!

Not sure where you copied this from to paste it here, but it's pure AGW religious zealotry.

 

[Old Rocks]

I've assembled a list of facts which disprove AGW:

1) The Earth's temperature has been influenced by natural factors in the past. Everyone with a 2nd grade education knows that if the temperature of a system can be influenced by natural forces, its physically impossible for man made forces to affect it.

2) The Sun is hot. Look at it. its right there. its really hot.

3) grapes grew in England in the medieval warm period. Nevermind the fact they grow there now as well, that's irrelevant.

4) Cavemen didn't have SUV's, therefore AGW MUST be wrong.


Does this about sum it up?

Your getting close....you forgot that other planets in our solar system also have warmed up. Or, did you forget that one?

But some are also cooling. Does the sun play favorites?

 

[Old Rocks]

2) Just because 100 years ago Arrhenius predicted AGW would happen if man continued to produce greenhouse gases - and it happened - doesn't mean AGW is falsifiable. I actually don't know what 'falsifiable' even means, its just a fancy word I read on an anti-AGW blog somewhere.

Your lack of knowledge of what words mean is your problem.



"Falsifiable" means that you can positively explain away all other possibilities via the Socratic method (i.e. asking questions as to what else could account for the given phenomena).

Damn Dooodeee...... don't you ever investigate before you post? Did you ever take a science course pass the third grade?

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.

For example, "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. "All men are immortal," by contrast, is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one dead man. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is falsifiable. Popper however stressed that unfalsifiable statements are still important in science, and are often implied by falsifiable theories. For example, while "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, it is a logical consequence of the falsifiable theory that "every man dies before he reaches the age of 150 years". Similarly, the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories.
....................................................................

That someone 100 years ago guessed that temperatures might rise and speculated as to why is of no more scientific merit than a Nostradamus quatrain.

He did not guess. He stated the physics of that prediction quite well. And he was also a Nobel Prize winner in the science of Chemistry. Again you demonstrate you willfull ignorance of science.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

anti-science crowd.

It's his indoctrination at LSU, he can't help it, MM

Yeah - Louisiana State University - a bastion of liberal thought


ROTFLMAO