Watch Before The Flood Here -- National Geographic (FULL MOVIE)

[Boss]

I'm sorry.... I said they were ADVOCATES and I didn't realize you had no idea what an advocate was.

 

[Crick]

I'm not sorry. There are a great many sources of objective, accurate information about AGW. You seem to have availed yourself to none of it.

 

[Crick]

But the 97% claim isn't true and it has been proven untrue. However, even if it were true, ad populum arguments are not science. Basically, your argument boils down to: You believe something is true because you think a lot of people said it's true. I think YOU need to familiarize yourself with science.

The 97 Percent Solution

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Your links don't work. However, it should be easy enough to find the articles by their title. If I pull up a different article by the same name, let me know.

The 97 Percent Solution [The 97 Percent Solution] - this had several hits, but the most likely seemed to be an article by National Review's Ian Tuttle, including a video showing Ted Cruz asking questions of
Aaron Mair, the president of the Sierra Club. Ted Cruz is most certainly not a scientist. Aaron Mair is an epidemiologist and has been working with the environmental movement for many years. He is not a research scientist either, but his science knowledge is certainly orders of magnitude better than Cruz's

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' [The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'] A Wall Street Journal article by octogenarian denier scientist Roy Spencer and president of the Heartland Institute (paid shill of the fossil fuel industry), Joe Bast.

'97% of Climate Scientists Agree' is 100% Wrong ['97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong] is an article by paid fossil fuel advocate Alex Epstein published in Forbes magazine

Are these what you use for science information? All are wrong. Please read:
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia
and
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

Hey MORON... it does not take a SCIENTIST to evaluate the percentages of scientists reported in a study. They weren't commenting on the science... they were debunking the claim of "97% scientists agree!" What they find is... 0.3% of scientists agree.... 99.7% didn't say they agree.

A number of surveys have been done with results that have clearly indicated a growing acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) by scientists in the field. These surveys have spoken to varying numbers of varying subgroups of climate scientists or have examined their published works, but the results have been exceptionally consistent. The results also show that the more a particular scientists knows about the topic of greenhouse warming, the more likely it is that they accept AGW as valid.

PS: Anyone quoting Legates work as a refutation of the consensus on AGW (as did two of your articles) has simply marked themselves as a gullible fool.

Quoting from the National Review, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes is to simply rely on Fox News for your science information. That's worse than worthless.

AGW is widely accepted science. There is simply no debate on that point.

Again... YOU are trying to make a Scientific argument based on popularity! Science simply does not work that way and most non-morons understand that. How many people believe your hoked-up nonsense means NOTHING to Science. Once was a time, most "Scientists" believed things levitate in the air because they long to be in the heavens and things slow down because they get tired. Scholars and professors at universities all over the world taught this as "scientific truth" for almost 2,000 years before Isaac Newton proved them wrong. For another 500 years, "scientists" and "science" believed time was absolute. Again, this was taught in universities all over the world until Albert Einstein showed that time was relative. Up until just a few years ago, every physics textbook in America was WRONG... they all stated the universe is mostly made of atoms... it's not... it's mostly made of dark matter and dark energy.

Science arguments made on popularity are the antithesis of Science. You're making a FAITH-BASED argument predicated on the fact that a lot of people you believe are reputable, agree with your opinion. Maybe you need to take a refresher course because that's just not how Science works and never has been.

Please explain, from your point of view, who does the accepting of "widely accepted science"? For instance, who accepted general and special relativity? Bloggers? Who accepted quantum mechanics? Politicians? A theory is checked and verified or rejected based on the conclusions of scientists in the pertinent field. That almost ALL climate scientists accept that human GHG emissions are the dominant cause of the global warming we've experienced over the past 150 years makes it a widely accepted theory.

 

[Boss]

Please explain, from your point of view, who does the accepting of "widely accepted science"? For instance, who accepted general and special relativity? Bloggers? Who accepted quantum mechanics? Politicians? A theory is checked and verified or rejected based on the conclusions of scientists in the pertinent field. That almost ALL climate scientists accept that human GHG emissions are the dominant cause of the global warming we've experienced over the past 150 years makes it a widely accepted theory.

Well... let's look at this. I mentioned Isaac Newton earlier... Sir Ike is noted as probably the greatest scientific mind of all time. One of his very first formal theories was the Theory of Color and Light. This is when he discovered through experiment and observation that white light was not "pure" and was actually a combination of all colors of light. Up until then, "Science" believed white light was pure and devoid of color.

Newton submitted his theory to Robert Hooke, head of the Royal Society, for peer review. His theory was panned by Hooke even though it proved to be correct. It took about another decade for other scientists to confirm Newton's findings and eventually, the Royal Society accepted Newton's theory as valid.

In October,1927, there was an historic science conference held in Copenhagen known as the 5th Solvay Conference. Neils Bohr was there to challenge Albert Einstein's classical physics. They went through days of heated argument and debate with some very colorful words and memorable quotes regarding Bohr's new and crazy ideas of a thing now understood as "quantum mechanics".

This is also where scientific realism gave way to instrumentalism. Pay attention here because this is very important to our debate on climate change....

Scientific realism was the school of thought that the world described by science is the real world as it is, independent of what it might be taken to be. Generally, those who were scientific realists asserted that one can make valid claims about unobservables. Scientific realism involves the two basic positions. First, it is a set of claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is the sort of theory science aims to produce. Second, it is the commitment that science will eventually produce theories very much like an ideal theory and that science has done pretty well thus far in some domains.

Instrumentalism is the premise that theories are tools or instruments identifying reliable means-end relations found in experience, but not claiming to reveal realities beyond experience. In other words, a theory is just a theory and has no relevance with regard to reality or truth. It may or may not be correct and that's reality based on our experience and observation.

So in 1927, this debate was settled among 27 Nobel Prize winners in Science and it has been the standard ever since. Many AGW proponents are relying upon a scientific realist viewpoint. This blatantly contradicts the last century of science but they don't seem to mind. They believe their theories can't be challenged because they've been peer reviewed and accepted as "reality" when that's not true.

That almost ALL climate scientists accept that human GHG emissions are the dominant cause of the global warming we've experienced over the past 150 years makes it a widely accepted theory.

First and foremost, this is not true. Almost ALL climate scientists do not "accept" this. Some are inclined to believe this... some will say a good case is made for this... others will say the jury is still out and we don't know. Those who are "accepting" this are practicing scientific realism, a 100-year-obsolete philosophy.

Now... A scientist can say that the dominate cause of global warming is the greenhouse effect and that's a true statement. A scientist can also say that the sun is the dominate cause of global warming and that's a true statement as well. A scientist can theorize that man's contribution to GHGs also contributes to global warming but it depends on whether you are practicing archaic scientific realism or modern instrumentalism as to whether or not that is a definitively true statement. And remaining is the question of just how much influence man's contribution is having and there is no valid scientific formula or theory to test that hypothesis at this time. AGW jumps the tracks by cobbling together the aforementioned true statements with scientific realist theories and formulates a new false theory that it promotes as "proven science" when it's simply nothing of the sort.

 

[Crick]

Please explain, from your point of view, who does the accepting of "widely accepted science"? For instance, who accepted general and special relativity? Bloggers? Who accepted quantum mechanics? Politicians? A theory is checked and verified or rejected based on the conclusions of scientists in the pertinent field. That almost ALL climate scientists accept that human GHG emissions are the dominant cause of the global warming we've experienced over the past 150 years makes it a widely accepted theory.

Well... let's look at this. I mentioned Isaac Newton earlier... Sir Ike is noted as probably the greatest scientific mind of all time. One of his very first formal theories was the Theory of Color and Light. This is when he discovered through experiment and observation that white light was not "pure" and was actually a combination of all colors of light. Up until then, "Science" believed white light was pure and devoid of color.

Newton submitted his theory to Robert Hooke, head of the Royal Society, for peer review. His theory was panned by Hooke even though it proved to be correct. It took about another decade for other scientists to confirm Newton's findings and eventually, the Royal Society accepted Newton's theory as valid.

And your point would be what? Newton did not go to the general public, as did you. And the general public did not falsify his theories. Newton's theories rapidly (for the time) became widely accepted among scientists of the field.

In October,1927, there was an historic science conference held in Copenhagen known as the 5th Solvay Conference. Neils Bohr was there to challenge Albert Einstein's classical physics. They went through days of heated argument and debate with some very colorful words and memorable quotes regarding Bohr's new and crazy ideas of a thing now understood as "quantum mechanics".

This is also where scientific realism gave way to instrumentalism. Pay attention here because this is very important to our debate on climate change....

Scientific realism was the school of thought that the world described by science is the real world as it is, independent of what it might be taken to be. Generally, those who were scientific realists asserted that one can make valid claims about unobservables. Scientific realism involves the two basic positions. First, it is a set of claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is the sort of theory science aims to produce. Second, it is the commitment that science will eventually produce theories very much like an ideal theory and that science has done pretty well thus far in some domains.

Instrumentalism is the premise that theories are tools or instruments identifying reliable means-end relations found in experience, but not claiming to reveal realities beyond experience. In other words, a theory is just a theory and has no relevance with regard to reality or truth. It may or may not be correct and that's reality based on our experience and observation.

So in 1927, this debate was settled among 27 Nobel Prize winners in Science and it has been the standard ever since. Many AGW proponents are relying upon a scientific realist viewpoint. This blatantly contradicts the last century of science but they don't seem to mind. They believe their theories can't be challenged because they've been peer reviewed and accepted as "reality" when that's not true.

First, if you're going to lift material wholesale from a source, such as Wikipedia's articles on scientific realism and instrumentalism, you ought to give them credit. For instance

Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world as it is, independent of what it might be taken to be. Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained?" The debate over the success of science in this context centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories. Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make valid claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables, as opposed to instrumentalism.
...
Second, it is the commitment that science will eventually produce theories very much like an ideal theory and that science has done pretty well thus far in some domains.

Instrumentalism is one of a multitude of modern schools of thought created by scientists and philosophers throughout the 20th century. It is named for its premise that theories are tools or instruments identifying reliable means-end relations found in experience, but not claiming to reveal realities beyond experience.[1] Its premises and practices were most clearly and persuasively stated by two philosophers, John Dewey (1859-1952) and Karl Popper (1902-1994). Independently, they defined the school quite similarly, but their judgments of its premises were irreconcilable.

Sounds very familiar, doesn't it.

That almost ALL climate scientists accept that human GHG emissions are the dominant cause of the global warming we've experienced over the past 150 years makes it a widely accepted theory.

First and foremost, this is not true.

The following studies:
Verheggen et al., 2014
Powell, 2013
John Cook et al., 2013
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
Bray and von Storch, 2008
STATS, 2007
Oreskes, 2004

say that is is. See Wikipedia's "Surveys of Scientist's Opinions on Climate Change"

Almost ALL climate scientists do not "accept" this. Some are inclined to believe this... some will say a good case is made for this... others will say the jury is still out and we don't know.

I have just produced ten peer-reviewed references supporting my contention. Where is the evidence on which your claim is based?

Those who are "accepting" this are practicing scientific realism, a 100-year-obsolete philosophy.

Those who are accepting this are practicing SCIENCE as it is currently conducted. The dichotomy between scientific realism and instrumentalism is entirely within the realm of philosophy and has virtually nothing to do with the day-to-day practice of the natural sciences.

Now... A scientist can say that the dominate cause of global warming is the greenhouse effect and that's a true statement. A scientist can also say that the sun is the dominate cause of global warming and that's a true statement as well. A scientist can theorize that man's contribution to GHGs also contributes to global warming but it depends on whether you are practicing archaic scientific realism or modern instrumentalism as to whether or not that is a definitively true statement. And remaining is the question of just how much influence man's contribution is having and there is no valid scientific formula or theory to test that hypothesis at this time. AGW jumps the tracks by cobbling together the aforementioned true statements with scientific realist theories and formulates a new false theory that it promotes as "proven science" when it's simply nothing of the sort.

The natural sciences deal with "truth" just as often as they deal with "proof". They do not. They deal with evidences and likelihoods. Based on mountains of evidence, the vast majority of climate scientists conclude that it is extremely likely that AGW is a correct description of the behavior of our climate in response to growing human GHG emissions. That is the consensus. That is what makes AGW a widely accepted theory. Your realism vs instrumentalism line is complete bullshit.

 

[Boss]

And your point would be what? Newton did not go to the general public, as did you. And the general public did not falsify his theories. Newton's theories rapidly (for the time) became widely accepted among scientists of the field.

So why are YOU going to the general public with these false claims on "proven science" behind climate change?

My point was, sometimes even the Science community reject things they shouldn't. They also "accept" things when they shouldn't. Science is certainly not infallible.

The following studies:
Verheggen et al., 2014
Powell, 2013
John Cook et al., 2013
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
Bray and von Storch, 2008
STATS, 2007
Oreskes, 2004

In none of these studies is scientific evidence presented that human activity is the predominate source of global climate change. At best, it is found to be a contributing factor but to what degree is still unanswered. It's likely to always be unanswered because of things like the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty. It's impossible to know where every CO2 molecule comes from or how it behaves or how nature ultimately effects it beyond man's control. We can speculate... we can guess... we can have opinions on it... these are "scientific realist" arguments being made nearly 100 years after "scientific realism" has been debunked.

I have just produced ten peer-reviewed references supporting my contention. Where is the evidence on which your claim is based?

No, you just listed out 10 studies that don't support your claim. That's what you do... you run around using big words and spouting supposedly "expert" sources and you don't present any actual science to evaluate. Again.... Science doesn't operate according to popular consensus. How many more times do I need to stress that point?

Those who are accepting this are practicing SCIENCE as it is currently conducted.

No, they are NOT. When you "accept" something, it means you have ceased practicing science and have adopted a faith in a conclusion which you accept.

Based on mountains of evidence, the vast majority of climate scientists conclude that it is extremely likely that AGW is a correct description of the behavior of our climate in response to growing human GHG emissions.

You can repeat this lie until you're blue in the face, it's still not going to be true.

 

[Crick]

In none of these studies is scientific evidence presented that human activity is the predominate source of global climate change. At best, it is found to be a contributing factor but to what degree is still unanswered. It's likely to always be unanswered because of things like the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty. It's impossible to know where every CO2 molecule comes from or how it behaves or how nature ultimately effects it beyond man's control. We can speculate... we can guess... we can have opinions on it... these are "scientific realist" arguments being made nearly 100 years after "scientific realism" has been debunked.

Good work Boss. None of those were studies intended to show that human activity was the predominant source of global climate change. Each and every one were simply surveys, polls or studies of the opinions of climate scientists concerning the cause of the global warming. You're babbling. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Scientific realism has not been debunked. This paragraph is a very clear indication that, as I've said to you several times now, you don't have a clue about this topic and you need to educate yourself.

Based on mountains of evidence, the vast majority of climate scientists conclude that it is extremely likely that AGW is a correct description of the behavior of our climate in response to growing human GHG emissions.

You can repeat this lie until you're blue in the face, it's still not going to be true.

I don't have to repeat it. It is a fact. If you'd bothered to read WG-I, The Physical Science Basis, or perused Wikipedia's "Surveys of Scientist's Opinions on Climate Change, you'd know this and might not have made as profound a fool of yourself as this post just did for you.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Anyone actually watch this? The news is bad unless we change things, but the presentation and actual footage is extraordinary.

Its pure propaganda.. no science to support their conjecture.. I see your easily duped..

 

[Crick]

Nowhere near as easily as you Billy.

 

[Boss]

Good work Boss. None of those were studies intended to show that human activity was the predominant source of global climate change.

Which is precisely why you shouldn't be presenting them as such!

I don't have to repeat it. It is a fact. If you'd bothered to read WG-I, The Physical Science Basis, or perused Wikipedia's "Surveys of Scientist's Opinions on Climate Change, you'd know this and might not have made as profound a fool of yourself as this post just did for you.

LMFAO.... Translation: If you would only read and believe in the propaganda I'm spewing from every orifice, you'd be a believer like me!

You have no scientific basis to conclude that man is significantly contributing to global climate change. When rational people demand you show them the actual science, you run to find your list of links to propaganda put out by people on a mission. You point to bogus data that you've manipulated and cherry-picked to show your conclusions. You reel off a list of names or organizations or studies in an attempted argument ad populum. None of which is Science.

 

[Boss]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Scientific realism has not been debunked. This paragraph is a very clear indication that, as I've said to you several times now, you don't have a clue about this topic and you need to educate yourself.

You know, I read this again and I sort of took offense. Whenever my education gets challenged, I take great pride in either not letting that stand or by learning something new I did not know before. Uncertainty Principle certainly has to do with everything because it's a physics principle. If whatever we are discussing pertains to the physical universe, it does have to do with it.

Now the CONTEXT is what is important, and I have found that ,many crackpot liberal morons who believe in warmer nonsense have no concept whatsoever of CONTEXT. This is fundamentally the reason they are idiots and morons.

MY context of using the famous Uncertainty Principle here was not to say the intricacies of the actual principle as they relate to atoms and subatomic particles is any sort of 'evidence' against molecular transfer of CO2 in the environment.

But as Heisenberg points out... we can never fully know where all atoms and their parts are at any given time, there is forever an uncertainty that we can't factor. This is what I am pointing out regarding molecules of CO2. We can say there are 300 ppm in the atmosphere... We can roughly calculate how many man has produced... Those are the two known variables we can measure.

In order for us to understand more, we have to first understand we are talking about the covalant bonding of elements. This, in itself, is a process of nature and a chemical reaction. Many, MANY things will cause two oxygen and one carbon atom to bond. They kinda like each other.... kind of have a freaky threesome thing going on. This is how they became one of the most abundant compounds in the universe.

The really cool thing about nature is, it's a balanced eco-system that isn't very fragile at all. I know that may come a shocker to you because other morons have taught you to believe the opposite. But Mother Nature can handle pretty much anything that isn't cataclysmic. It can adjust and adapt to subtle changes and remain relatively stable through billions of years. If anything ever goes wonky, it self-corrects.

So our formula for figuring out human contribution effects to global climate change contains unknown natural variables. You simply can't calculate how much CO2 the ocean can absorb, how much is used and converted by plant life or how much is the result of natural phenomenon like volcanoes undersea heat vents, earthquakes, etc. All we can do with any of this vital information in our formula is estimate.

Therefore, I can safely conclude any formula for discovering how much human activity is contributing significantly to change in climate which will result in any sort of catastrophe is an unknown value.

 

[Crick]

Good work Boss. None of those were studies intended to show that human activity was the predominant source of global climate change.

Which is precisely why you shouldn't be presenting them as such!

Please go back and read that post. I clearly stated that those studies supported the statement that a very high majority of climate scientists accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate.

I don't have to repeat it. It is a fact. If you'd bothered to read WG-I, The Physical Science Basis, or perused Wikipedia's "Surveys of Scientist's Opinions on Climate Change, you'd know this and might not have made as profound a fool of yourself as this post just did for you.

You have no scientific basis to conclude that man is significantly contributing to global climate change.

Thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies conclude precisely that and virtually NONE conclude otherwise. If you'd like to see an objective assessment of them, go to www.ipcc.ch and read WG-I, The Physical Science Basis. If instead, you choose to get your science from Fox News, don't come here talking about scientific evidence.

 

[Crick]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Scientific realism has not been debunked. This paragraph is a very clear indication that, as I've said to you several times now, you don't have a clue about this topic and you need to educate yourself.

You know, I read this again and I sort of took offense. Whenever my education gets challenged, I take great pride in either not letting that stand or by learning something new I did not know before. Uncertainty Principle certainly has to do with everything because it's a physics principle. If whatever we are discussing pertains to the physical universe, it does have to do with it.

When you were caught having chosen to pretend you knew more physics than you actually did, the wiser move would have been to admit your error and back up. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle tells us that we are limited in the precision with which we can know both the position and energy level (momentum) of a specific particle. We can fix one with precision, but that will 'blur' our knowledge of the other. Heisenberg says absolutely nothing about estimating the number of molecules and has absolutely no effect on the question of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, how much of it came from the human combustion of fossil fuels and how much effect it will have on the Earth's temperature. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Now the CONTEXT is what is important, and I have found that ,many crackpot liberal morons who believe in warmer nonsense have no concept whatsoever of CONTEXT. This is fundamentally the reason they are idiots and morons.

So, you believe me to be a crackpot liberal moron. And that would be because I have corrected your several, blatant errors in basic physics and general science and you have so far not made a single cogent statement about the topic under discussion? Got it.

MY context of using the famous Uncertainty Principle here was not to say the intricacies of the actual principle as they relate to atoms and subatomic particles is any sort of 'evidence' against molecular transfer of CO2 in the environment.

Really? Why don't we have a look at what you actually DID say:

At best, it is found to be a contributing factor but to what degree is still unanswered. It's likely to always be unanswered because of things like the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty. It's impossible to know where every CO2 molecule comes from or how it behaves or how nature ultimately effects it beyond man's control. We can speculate... we can guess... we can have opinions on it... these are "scientific realist" arguments being made nearly 100 years after "scientific realism" has been debunked.

Hmmm....

But as Heisenberg points out... we can never fully know where all atoms and their parts are at any given time, there is forever an uncertainty that we can't factor.

Unfortunately, that is NOT what Heisenberg actually says. We CAN know precisely where an atom is at a given moment in time. It is simply that doing so severely restricts our ability to know how fast it is going at the same moment.

This is what I am pointing out regarding molecules of CO2. We can say there are 300 ppm in the atmosphere...

We can measure the level of CO2 in the atmosphere with precision in the billionths. And the current value's MEASURE is slightly in excess of 400 ppm.

We can roughly calculate how many man has produced...

And you seem to have failed to note that we can do this in two ways which produce nearly identical results: 1) simple bookkeeping, ie, how much oil, coal and natural gas have we burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (IR) and 2) examining the ratios of the isotopes of carbon present in the atmosphere's CO2. That ratio tells us how much has come from animal respiration and vegetable decay and how much was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. Both calculation tell us that nearly every molecule of CO2 abvoe the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the IR were produced by humans.

Those are the two known variables we can measure.

There are dozens of other variables that can be measured. But when you described those two, you characterized neither as a measurement. You said "we can SAY there are 300 ppm in the atmosphere" and "We can roughly calculate how many man has produced".

In order for us to understand more, we have to first understand we are talking about the covalant bonding of elements.

It is not always necessary to dig yourself deeper - the other side of the planet is a long ways away. Why don't you stop pretending and talk about what you DO know? Nothing in this topic requires a discussion of covalent bonding.

This, in itself, is a process of nature and a chemical reaction. Many, MANY things will cause two oxygen and one carbon atom to bond.

There are a number of processes that produce CO2. There are NOT "Many MANY things" that will cause carbon and oxygen to bond. And, again, this has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

They kinda like each other.... kind of have a freaky threesome thing going on. This is how they became one of the most abundant compounds in the universe.

Very interesting. Irrelevant, but interesting.

The really cool thing about nature is, it's a balanced eco-system that isn't very fragile at all. I know that may come a shocker to you because other morons have taught you to believe the opposite. But Mother Nature can handle pretty much anything that isn't cataclysmic. It can adjust and adapt to subtle changes and remain relatively stable through billions of years. If anything ever goes wonky, it self-corrects.

Look up "Extinction Events".

So our formula for figuring out human contribution effects to global climate change contains unknown natural variables. You simply can't calculate how much CO2 the ocean can absorb, how much is used and converted by plant life or how much is the result of natural phenomenon like volcanoes undersea heat vents, earthquakes, etc. All we can do with any of this vital information in our formula is estimate.

Therefore, I can safely conclude any formula for discovering how much human activity is contributing significantly to change in climate which will result in any sort of catastrophe is an unknown value.

I'm sorry dude, but you simply do not know what the fuck you are talking about on ANY subject you have yet brought up. Your error rate is higher than had you strung words together at random.

 

[Boss]

Please go back and read that post. I clearly stated that those studies supported the statement that a very high majority of climate scientists accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate.

Oh, this is just TOO rich.. Now you have studies to support your studies which make an ad populum argument instead of presenting physical science. Nice!

Thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies conclude precisely that and virtually NONE conclude otherwise.

Argument Ad Populum!

So, you believe me to be a crackpot liberal moron.

YES!

There are a number of processes that produce CO2. There are NOT "Many MANY things" that will cause carbon and oxygen to bond. And, again, this has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Yes, there are and yes it does. Until you can account for all possible ways a CO2 molecule came to exist, you can't make an argument pertaining to existing CO2 and attribute it to one source.

Look up "Extinction Events".

You look them up.... they ALWAYS happen as the result of a sudden cataclysmic event. They've NEVER happened as the result of slight variations over time.

I'm sorry dude, but you simply do not know what the fuck you are talking about on ANY subject you have yet brought up.

And that's YOUR opinion. I think I'm doing rather well pointing out your lack of actual SCIENCE being presented. The fact that you keep reverting to the same argument ad populum, as if THAT is valid science.... you're a real piece of work and nutty as a fucking fruitcake.

 

[Crick]

Please go back and read that post. I clearly stated that those studies supported the statement that a very high majority of climate scientists accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate.

Oh, this is just TOO rich.. Now you have studies to support your studies which make an ad populum argument instead of presenting physical science. Nice!

Surveys of experts, published in peer reviewed journals, do not constitute an ad populum argument.

Thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies conclude precisely that and virtually NONE conclude otherwise.

Argument Ad Populum!

So you believe all science is based on a fallacious argument. Got it.

So, you believe me to be a crackpot liberal moron.

YES!

And this would be because I have refuted every contention you've made using peer reviewed science published in refereed journals while the ONLY sources you've quoted so far consist of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the National Review. You've attempted to bring in completely irrelevant phenomenon such as Heisenberg Uncertainty and covalent bonding. Finally, in your attempt to somehow relate scientific realism and instrumentalism to this question, you plagiarized Wikipedia.

There are a number of processes that produce CO2. There are NOT "Many MANY things" that will cause carbon and oxygen to bond. And, again, this has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Yes, there are and yes it does. Until you can account for all possible ways a CO2 molecule came to exist, you can't make an argument pertaining to existing CO2 and attribute it to one source.

Saying it - which is ALL you have done (and with seriously flawed logic and science - doesn't make it so. Bookkeeping and isotopic analysis shows that virtually every molecule above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel. You have yet to produce one iota of an argument actually challenging that point. Instead, you've pulled up random science terms and thrown them up here with some fairly pathetic gobbledygook that hasn't meant ANYTHING.

Look up "Extinction Events".

You look them up.... they ALWAYS happen as the result of a sudden cataclysmic event. They've NEVER happened as the result of slight variations over time.

So you think current global warming has grown at rates slow in comparison to the Earth's extinction events. Let's have a look.

Extinction event - Wikipedia

1. Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (End Cretaceous, K-Pg extinction, or formerly K-T extinction): 66 Ma at the Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)-Paleogene (Danian) transition interval.[6] The event formerly called the Cretaceous-Tertiary or K–T extinction or K-T boundary is now officially named the Cretaceous–Paleogene (or K–Pg) extinction event. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera[7] and 75% of all species became extinct.[8] In the seas all the ammonites, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs disappeared and the percentage of sessile animals (those unable to move about) was reduced to about 33%. All non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.[9] The boundary event was severe with a significant amount of variability in the rate of extinction between and among different clades. Mammals and birds, the latter descended from theropod dinosaurs, emerged as dominant large land animals. [This, of course, was the asteroid impact at Chicxulub]
2. Triassic–Jurassic extinction event (End Triassic): 201.3 Ma at the Triassic-Jurassic transition. About 23% of all families, 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) and 70% to 75% of all species became extinct.[7] Most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, leaving dinosaurs with little terrestrial competition. Non-dinosaurian archosaurs continued to dominate aquatic environments, while non-archosaurian diapsids continued to dominate marine environments. The Temnospondyl lineage of large amphibians also survived until the Cretaceous in Australia (e.g., Koolasuchus).
3. Permian–Triassic extinction event (End Permian): 252 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition. Earth's largest extinction killed 57% of all families, 83% of all genera and 90% to 96% of all species[7] (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species,[2] including insects).[10] The highly successful marine arthropod, the trilobite became extinct. The evidence of plants is less clear, but new taxa became dominant after the extinction.[11] The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land, it ended the primacy of mammal-like reptiles. The recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years,[12] but the vacant niches created the opportunity for archosaurs to become ascendant. In the seas, the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life, even before the "Great Dying".
4. Late Devonian extinction: 375–360 Ma near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition. At the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period, a prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera[7] and at least 70% of all species.[13] This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 million years, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period.
5. Ordovician–Silurian extinction events (End Ordovician or O-S): 450–440 Ma at the Ordovician-Silurian transition. Two events occurred that killed off 27% of all families, 57% of all genera and 60% to 70% of all species.[7] Together they are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that became extinct.

The theorized causes of extinction events, from the same Wikipedia article, include:

1. Asteroid impact - the KT event, 66 million years ago, is the only one of the five significant extinction events thought to have been caused by an impact. There is
2. Flood basalt events
3. Sea level falls
4. Sustained and significant global warming
5. Sustained and significant global cooling
6. Clathrate gun hypothesis
7. Anoxic events
8. Marine hydrogen sulfate emissions
9. Ocean overturn
10. Nearby nova, supernova or gamma ray burst
11. Geomagnetic reversal
12. Plate tectonics

The Industrial Revolution began in 1760, 256 years ago. The bulk of global warming has taken place in the last 50 years. So... another one wrong.

I'm sorry dude, but you simply do not know what the fuck you are talking about on ANY subject you have yet brought up.

And that's YOUR opinion. I think I'm doing rather well pointing out your lack of actual SCIENCE being presented. The fact that you keep reverting to the same argument ad populum, as if THAT is valid science.... you're a real piece of work and nutty as a fucking fruitcake.

I'm the ONLY one in this discussion who has referred/linked to "actual science". We've got nothing from you but opinion pieces from right-wing magazines with no expertise in any branch of science. You think quoting peer reviewed science is an ad populum argument and fail to notice your own repeated ad hominems.

You lose.

 

[Boss]

Surveys of experts, published in peer reviewed journals, do not constitute an ad populum argument.

That's exactly what they constitute when all you do is present lists of them and crow about how many there are.

So you believe all science is based on a fallacious argument. Got it.

That's NOT what I said. Science is the practice of investigating the natural physical universe. It is the asking of questions, observation and evaluation based on testing... it's not conclusions. Once you've reached conclusions you're no longer practicing Science.

I am more than willing to discuss science with you but you want to discuss conclusions and the popularity of them. And how stupid I am not to believe as you do.

And this would be because I have refuted every contention you've made using peer reviewed science published in refereed journals...

And so far, NONE of them support your statements of conclusion that human activity is causing the climate to change significantly. The problem is, you NEED for them to make this conclusion to facilitate a call to action. And that's where I have a problem with you.

So you think current global warming has grown at rates slow in comparison to the Earth's extinction events. Let's have a look.

Again, you are apparently missing the point. Most, if not all, extinction events are the result of a sudden cataclysmic event.... like being hit by an asteroid. A gamma ray burst. Super-volcanic eruptions. This is because our ecosystem is very well equipped to adapt and adjust to minor changes.

The theorized causes of extinction events....

Again... theories are not conclusions, they are opinions. We don't know, in some cases, exactly what caused the event. But in most cases where we DO know, it was something sudden and cataclysmic... not something that happened over 200 years in small degrees. Nature tends to adapt to these things... you've studied about adaptation and survival, right?

The Industrial Revolution began in 1760, 256 years ago. The bulk of global warming has taken place in the last 50 years. So... another one wrong.

Even if this is true it's not evidence that man is causing it or the Industrial Revolution is responsible. 1.5 degrees change in 150 years doesn't seem very significant to me. The Earth goes through cycles of much warmer and cooler periods. To be completely honest, life tends to endure the warmer periods better than the cooler ones.

Now the bulk of global warming in the past 50 years is greater because the data for global warming is greater. 150 years ago, we didn't have the number of monitoring stations around the globe to obtain anywhere near the level of accurate data that we can today with modern technology. In many cases, we simply don't know how "off" the past records and data might be.

Bookkeeping and isotopic analysis shows that virtually every molecule above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel. You have yet to produce one iota of an argument actually challenging that point.

Oh but I have indeed.

The CO2 level in our atmosphere has changed a great deal through our planet's ~4-billion-year existence. We've had many more and many less ppm at any given time. We know that the ocean absorbs about 70% or so of the atmospheric CO2. It processes this CO2 in various ways. So... is the ocean in on the conspiracy? Is it rejecting that nasty Industrial CO2? Of course not. Are the plants in on the conspiracy as well? Do they turn their noses up at nasty industrial CO2?No.... CO2 is CO2. It's a compound element.

While this is all happening, nature itself, through it's own processes is creating CO2. Apparently, nature is in on the conspiracy too... She has been paid off by the corporate industrialists to just stop producing any CO2 so that we can blame all molecules of it on them!

 

[Crick]

Surveys of experts, published in peer reviewed journals, do not constitute an ad populum argument.

That's exactly what they constitute when all you do is present lists of them and crow about how many there are.

Then, as I stated below, you reject all widely accepted scientific theories because that is what defines the very concept.

So you believe all science is based on a fallacious argument. Got it.

That's NOT what I said. Science is the practice of investigating the natural physical universe. It is the asking of questions, observation and evaluation based on testing... it's not conclusions. Once you've reached conclusions you're no longer practicing Science.

Apparently, you've never read a single scientific study. They ALL end with CONCLUSIONS.

I am more than willing to discuss science with you but you want to discuss conclusions and the popularity of them. And how stupid I am not to believe as you do.

I have provided links to published studies. You have provided links to none.

And this would be because I have refuted every contention you've made using peer reviewed science published in refereed journals...

And so far, NONE of them support your statements of conclusion that human activity is causing the climate to change significantly. The problem is, you NEED for them to make this conclusion to facilitate a call to action. And that's where I have a problem with you.

The very first link I gave you, "WG-I, The Physical Science Basis" provided over 1,800 pages of peer reviewed science supporting the idea that the world has been getting warmer and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions and human deforestation. If you'd like a shorter, less technical version, review "Summary for Policy Makers" at the same link [www.ipcc.ch]. That you would even enter this conversation without a reasonable understanding of what those documents contain does not testify to a real interest in this topic or the scientific issues under question. That you would plagiarize sources and attempt to bring completely spurious ideas into the conversation tells us that your science shortcomings are severe and that your integrity is lacking. That's where I have a problem with you.

So you think current global warming has grown at rates slow in comparison to the Earth's extinction events. Let's have a look.

Again, you are apparently missing the point. Most, if not all, extinction events are the result of a sudden cataclysmic event.... like being hit by an asteroid. A gamma ray burst. Super-volcanic eruptions. This is because our ecosystem is very well equipped to adapt and adjust to minor changes.

Wrong again. Only one of the five major extinction events were caused by a catastrophic event. The rest were caused by conditions that took thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to develop.

The theorized causes of extinction events....

Again... theories are not conclusions, they are opinions. We don't know, in some cases, exactly what caused the event. But in most cases where we DO know, it was something sudden and cataclysmic... not something that happened over 200 years in small degrees. Nature tends to adapt to these things... you've studied about adaptation and survival, right?

Your shortcomings on basic science truly are severe. Theories are NOT opinions. They are hypotheses supported by evidence, by successful predictions, by experimentation and by a failure to falsify. You seem oblivious to the basics of the scientific method. You REALLY need to educate yourself. Try visiting some of the following:

6 Free Websites for Learning and Teaching Science
Ten Websites for Science Teachers
The Best Websites for Expanding Your Scientific Knowledge
15 Great Free Science Resources for Teachers and Students ~ Educational Technology and Mobile Learning
The Science Spot

The Industrial Revolution began in 1760, 256 years ago. The bulk of global warming has taken place in the last 50 years. So... another one wrong.

Even if this is true it's not evidence that man is causing it or the Industrial Revolution is responsible.

That wasn't the intention of the point. It was to counter your suggestion that the current global warming phenomenon was a gradual, long term event. With regard to the planet's ability to compensate, by evolution, by buffering, by other adaptations, it is the catastrophic event.

1.5 degrees change in 150 years doesn't seem very significant to me.

It is.

The Earth goes through cycles of much warmer and cooler periods.

Yes. Over periods measured in the hundreds of thousands of years and almost all long before the rise of homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens appeared 200,000 years ago. Human culture is approximately 5,000 years old.

To be completely honest, life tends to endure the warmer periods better than the cooler ones.

Where do you see periods where we did better under warmer conditions? 120,000 years back? For that matter, when have humans ever fared better than they do today (ie, with modern medicine, communications, travel, living conditions, average lifespan, etc)?

Now the bulk of global warming in the past 50 years is greater because the data for global warming is greater. 150 years ago, we didn't have the number of monitoring stations around the globe to obtain anywhere near the level of accurate data that we can today with modern technology. In many cases, we simply don't know how "off" the past records and data might be.

Good grief. I repeat: you'd do better stringing random words together.

Bookkeeping and isotopic analysis shows that virtually every molecule above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel. You have yet to produce one iota of an argument actually challenging that point.

Oh but I have indeed.

The CO2 level in our atmosphere has changed a great deal through our planet's ~4-billion-year existence. We've had many more and many less ppm at any given time.

Yes, CO2 level has been higher and slightly lower during the planet's history. It has NOT, however, been higher since the appearance of homo sapiens. THAT is the critical factor.

CO2 levels have not been at current levels for well over a million years.

We know that the ocean absorbs about 70% or so of the atmospheric CO2.

Wrong. See How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up?
The oceans currently take up approximately 26% of the CO2 being produced by humans. That number was slightly higher at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, simply because there was less CO2 in the oceans. Additionally, global warming has warmed the oceans which reduces gas solubility and thus the ocean can take up less CO2. On top of that, the warming of the ocean has reduced surface mixing which has also reduced the amount the oceans are taking up.

It processes this CO2 in various ways.

What ways would those be?

So... is the ocean in on the conspiracy? Is it rejecting that nasty Industrial CO2? Of course not. Are the plants in on the conspiracy as well? Do they turn their noses up at nasty industrial CO2?No.... CO2 is CO2. It's a compound element.

No one has suggested that anthropogenic CO2 is any more or less likely to be dissolved in the ocean or absorbed by the soil or respired by plants. CO2 is not a "compound element". There is no such thing as a "compound element". It is a compound. That produced by the combustion of fossil fuels has a different isotopic ratio than contemporary gas. I sincerely doubt you know what an isotope is: elements exist in a limited number of varieties; those varieties differing in the number of neutrons they contain in their atomic nuclei. This affects their atomic masses but has no affect on normal chemical reactions as the number of protons remains unchanged.

While this is all happening, nature itself, through it's own processes is creating CO2. Apparently, nature is in on the conspiracy too... She has been paid off by the corporate industrialists to just stop producing any CO2 so that we can blame all molecules of it on them!

As you can see in the data above, human activity has changed the atmosphere's CO2 level faster and to a greater extent than "nature" (and you really need to identify for us all that you include under that rubrik) has managed to do in at least the last 800,000 years.

The problem with anthropogenic CO2 is that it is being created faster than Earth systems can cope with it. For instance, the increase in CO2 is causing the pH of the oceans to drop (become less caustic/more acidic). CO2 dissolved in water creates carbonic acid. That is why carbonated beverages have an acidic 'tang' to them. This acidity increases the solubility of carbonates which has a significant effect on carbonate (or more correctly, aragonite) -fixing organisms such as corals and the entire clan of molluscidae that force aragonite out of solution to create their physical structures. The decreased pH is also turning out to have effects on the reproductive function of a number of other vertebrate marine species.

Normally, such changes in CO2 occur over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The weathering of calcium carbonate minerals ashore (fresh water also gets acidified) has a strong buffering effect which stabilizes the ocean's pH levels. The last time CO2 rose as quickly in the Earth's history as it is doing today was during the Permian-Triassic extinction event when 90% of all marine species (not individuals, species) went extinct.

This same rapidity will cause the world's oceans to rise at a rate that will cost humanity hundreds of trillions of dollars to deal with. Warming will have drastic effects on water supplies (from disappearing glaciers and severely altered rainfall patterns) and crop failures (from temperature and precipitation changes). Such effects will profoundly overwhelm any growth increase due to heightened CO2 levels and converting newly warmed land to agriculture is not a simple or inexpensive process. No one is predicting the demise of the human species. They are predicting severe consequences of a preventable phenomenon that will cause suffering, deaths and overwhelming costs worldwide. If you want to express an opinion on the topic, I again strongly suggest you improve your knowledge base. Check out the science education links above. Read the Summary for Policy Makers at www.ipcc.ch. And please stop pretending you know things that you quite obviously do not.

 

[Boss]

Then, as I stated below, you reject all widely accepted scientific theories because that is what defines the very concept.

No... it's not at all what defines ANY concept. It is simply an ad populum argument. Science is not a popularity contest. It does not matter to Science if every scientist in the world believes something is true.

I reject all theories as conclusions. You draw your conclusions based on faith in a theory. And you believe because something is "widely accepted" that is proof of something... but that's not science... that's FAITH.

 

[Crick]

You're lost. Completely lost. There's really no point debating any of this with you. You've got absolutely nothing to bring to the table.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Loserterinaism is insanity and such backwards thinking that they'd declare the sun blue at noon if you asked them the color.