Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Cosmos and science ignorance

[Iceweasel]

What do you think happens when we have a major volcanic eruption Whizzo?

We had one here, fairly major too. Is the Earth warmer because of it?

Boy, you keep right up with all the latest, don't you.

The world gets COOLER when volcanoes erupt. I'll leave the causative function as an exercise for the reader.

Golly. You must be almost a genius. That's what I meant, Einstein.

 

[Iceweasel]

right, Global Warming makes it Warmer and Cooler, it's Global WarmerCoolering and Global CoolerWarmering

I think I have it, global warming in summer and climate change when you're freezing your balls off.

 

[gnarlylove]

Readable version: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/alternet-comics-jen-sorensen-corporate-science-deniers

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Is there a funny version?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still waiting for the AGWCult to explain away a 600,000 year data set

Any day now

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Abraham3]

Twice, in this thread, I have posted four, eminently falsifiable claims included in AGW. The only one to make any response was Crusader Frank and I hope I don't have to explain how much that was worth. Are any of you hotshot - particularly those of you that want to kill people over this - willing to defend your claims?

600,000 year data set falsifies your AGWCult of CO2 driving climate

This same graph has been put up before Frank. The zero on that graph is 1950. It's completely normal to use 1950 as "the present" as in "Before the Present" or "BP" but it's not okay to leave out the largest part of the contemporary warming phenomenon. If you were to plot the temperature and CO2 levels to the present day, the temperatures would leave the grid and the CO2 would leave the entire piece of paper. So, that data is being presented in a deceptive manner.

Now then, while the actual data might, that graph does not have the resolution to make any statements about CO2 lagging or leading temperatures. However, this topic has just about been talked to death. I'll presume you weren't listening and see if I can put together the Readers Digest version.

Increasing temperatures, from whatever cause, will cause CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise. That has happened on numerous occasions in Earth's history and NO ONE is disputing the point.

CO2 is a Greenhouse gas and its presence in the atmosphere causes the Earth to accumulate solar energy by absorbing IR (aka long wave or LW radiation). That is a completely SEPARATE process to that which releases CO2 on heating.

So, what happens when ANYTHING causes the Earth to get warmer? CO2 levels go up and the Greenhouse warming THEY cause start to increase. As Jeremy Shakun and his co-researchers found, in almost every case of post glacial warming in the course of the last 22,000 years, after a few hundred years, warming from the released CO2 overtook whatever warming had started the process.

And, as you would all realize if you'd take off your "Biased Political Zealot" hats and put on the ones you wear while actually thinking about stuff, that warming releases CO2 in NO WAY prevents or suggests or in any way makes us think that CO2 cannot cause greenhouse warming. They are SEPARATE PROCESSES. The truth is that the nature of these two processes are such that one is providing a strong positive feedback to the other. It is NOT a good thing that both are true.

BTW, your graph addresses NOTHING in the four falsifiable AGW claims of mine that you quoted at the head. I believe you just used them as an excuse to put up a graphic Frank. Not good.

 

[westwall]

I have been told by four different deniers that AGW was not falsifiable. I have yet to get an explanation for that position. What's the hold up?

Easy. Does AGW cause more rain or less rain? More snow or less snow? Warmer temps or cooler temps? I can show you peer reviewed papers (and they are in fact in a few of these innumerable threads on here) that claim each and every one of those for AGW.

That's not how science works. You get one or the other. Not both. You guys always claim both sides.

You really don't understand the question, do you. Let's try again.

Why do you believe that the theory that says human activity is the primary cause of the global warming we've experienced the last 150 years is not falsifiable? If the only answer you've got for us is a display of your personal ignorance, I can accept that. We all have our limitations.

ps: A hint: AGW is not defined by the posts on this message board.

I just gave you the reasons. Clearly your reasoning ability is greatly reduced. The AGW supporters MAKE ALL OF THOSE CLAIMS. That is the very definition of an untestable hypothesis, or have you never taken a science class?

Your post is an excellent example of why we can't take you people seriously anymore. You haven't the vaguest clue how science actually works. You fundamentally don't understand the scientific method......or...you are intellectually dishonest and simply don't care about the lack of scientific rigor in the field of climatology.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I have been told by four different deniers that AGW was not falsifiable. I have yet to get an explanation for that position. What's the hold up?

Easy. Does AGW cause more rain or less rain? More snow or less snow? Warmer temps or cooler temps? I can show you peer reviewed papers (and they are in fact in a few of these innumerable threads on here) that claim each and every one of those for AGW.

That's not how science works. You get one or the other. Not both. You guys always claim both sides.

That makes two of us.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8782529-post43.html

But it seems that reason and what "falsifiable" means just bounce off his head, like a Nerf ball.

 

[gnarlylove]

Is there a funny version?

Just because it's a cartoon doesn't mean it's suppose to be funny. It's suppose to show stupid people like yourself how propaganda works. But since it's your central identity, you can't get it.

 

[jillian]

Neil should know that a non-falsifiable hypothesis is not science.

You know what? I bet he does. That leaves the very real possibility that you are wrong to consider [whatever it is you're considering] a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

Yes he should. Unfortunately he sides with the flat earthers who think "climate change" is man made. However his show on the science channel last night was interesting.

no doubt you know more than neil degrasse tyson about climate science.

lmao


not…..

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Is there a funny version?

Just because it's a cartoon doesn't mean it's suppose to be funny. It's suppose to show stupid people like yourself how propaganda works. But since it's your central identity, you can't get it.

Already given up on trying to pass yourself off as a rational, reasoning individual, have ya?

 

[gnarlylove]

you never pretended to participate in rational debate to begin with. your truism was to avoid argument, and instead be curt and witty. change your mind much? only when it favors your horrible deficient logic.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

A political cartoon isn't a reasoned effort, either. So, I gave it all the deference it deserved.

You really aren't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, are ya?

 

[Abraham3]

I trust you will maintain that position to everyone here that attempts argumentum ab crayolus.

 

[gnarlylove]

To say pictures and cartoons do not convey information and truth betrays what your optical nerve does every second when you look at the world. But the good thing about your brain and visual cortex is it doesn't require the user to be particularly skilled at understanding the world (which you clearly are not).

 

[gnarlylove]

Oh that's right. I was committing the crayon fallacy. Aha! My apologies helen. You are always so strict about your use of logic, what a slave driver!

 

[HelenaHandbag]

To say pictures and cartoons do not convey information and truth betrays what your optical nerve does every second when you look at the world. But the good thing about your brain and visual cortex is it doesn't require the user to be particularly skilled at understanding the world (which you clearly are not).

I didn't say that the stupid and unfunny cartoon didn't convey any information. I just said that it was not funny.

Perhaps because its unfunnieness is directly proportional to its exaggeration, over-generalization and garden variety bigotry.

YMMV.

 

[mamooth]

If today is "different from the past," then you can't use data from the past to support your theories about the present.

Wow, that's dumb.

But hey, it could be that your tiny pack of bitter raving fringe nutters are only ones who understand the RealTruth, which the whole planet really is engaged in a vast conspiracy to suppress.

But probably not.

 

[mamooth]

The AGW supporters MAKE ALL OF THOSE CLAIMS.

No they don't. You claim that a lot, but you're always full of shit.

If you're not full of shit, just show in AR5 where it predicts two entirely different things. Don't bother with your usual dishonest cherrypicking, since that will just be dismissed with the usual laughter.

That is the very definition of an untestable hypothesis, or have you never taken a science class?

The science says you're not doing science, being denialists are too chicken to make any predictions.

AGW science has so much cred because it's been making testable predictions and seeing them come true for decades. If you want the same cred, you have to take a stand and make some predictions. Just screaming at people isn't going to get you any credibility, other than with your fellow cultists.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The AGW supporters MAKE ALL OF THOSE CLAIMS.

No they don't. You claim that a lot, but you're always full of shit.

If you're not full of shit, just show in AR5 where it predicts two entirely different things. Don't bother with your usual dishonest cherrypicking, since that will just be dismissed with the usual laughter.

That is the very definition of an untestable hypothesis, or have you never taken a science class?

The science says you're not doing science, being denialists are too chicken to make any predictions.

AGW science has so much cred because it's been making testable predictions and seeing them come true for decades. If you want the same cred, you have to take a stand and make some predictions. Just screaming at people isn't going to get you any credibility, other than with your fellow cultists.

Yet, the computer models are always, yes always, wrong.

So much for testable and true.