patrick.net

marcus says

And that can't be proven by a method you are referring to

Fine. Then lets admit this is a religion and not science.

marcus says

can't be proven by a method you are referring to in a time frame that would save us from ruin

The same can be said for giving yourself to Jesus Christ and thus not going to Hell. It cant be empirically proven until its too late.

Climate change = religion.

justme says

Greenhouse Effect implies

justme says

agree with the above

Science doesnt "agree" with implications. Scientific process determines known facts and associated odds of known facts, as well as odds of predictable modeling. Even with known facts, without predictable modeling there is little we can do to effect the outcome. Theories "imply" empirical results. What are the predicted empirical results? What would prove vs disprove your theories?

Everyone understands the concept of GE. The MODELING is where GE gets difficult. HOW MUCH effect does each extra unit of carbon add? Where is the hypothesis, model, prediction and results of the science on this topic? I'm not saying it isnt there. I have never seen a climate change talking head discuss these basic issues though. If you have links to actual scientific tests of GE and the results thereof, please share. I could give you any number of predictions gone awry to show the unscientific talking heads (such as al gore and pretty much all politicians who push for CC agendas).

marcus says

Perhaps in a totally fucked world 2 centuries from now, the trust fund inheritors of fossil fuel fortunes will still be arguing that we just don't know what caused the earths great catastrophic global warming.

Do you find it ironic the fossil fuel billionaires are leading the climate change debate? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rockefeller-family-feud-with-exxon-mobil-fossil-fuels-global-warming-climate-change/ Or perhaps the global elite are using GW as a means to consolidate power.... nah, couldnt be. The world's oligopoly would NEVER use a global panic to solidify power. Never.

CBOEtrader says

marcus says

can't be proven by a method you are referring to in a time frame that would save us from ruin

The same can be said for giving yourself to Jesus Christ and thus not going to Hell. It cant be empirically proven until its too late.

Climate change = religion.

That was a beauty.

CBOEtrader says

The same can be said for giving yourself to Jesus Christ and thus not going to Hell. It cant be empirically proven until its too late.

Climate change = religion.

Indeed, the entire argument of global warming is very similar to Pascal’s wager.
1) Since God, heaven, and hell cant be proven, best to act like God exists and cover your bases, else we risk Hell.
2)Since Global Warming and catastrophic climate change can’t be proven, best to act like it is real else we risk dying in an inferno.

CBOEtrader says

Without future predictions compared to future empirical observations, there is no science.

Yes, I'm sure you got an A on that middle school test about the scientific method. .The truth is, that if someone determines something is true based on past data analysis, it can be deemed true even if if the system so complex that it can't nearly be predicted perfectly going forward.

Is Geology a science ?

Besides, even by your reasoning, you should accept Global Warming. Scientists have predicted for decades that warming is occurring. The future (relative to when they predicted it) has shown them to be correct. Now you're going to change your rules and say it's not enough that they predicted warming and it happened, year after year after year after year after year and decade after decade. According to you, if they can't take in to account all variables and a highly complex system coming up with perfect predictions, then we can't use the warming that has occurred as confirmation of their theory.

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

When the consensus finally agreed that cigarette smoking causes cancer, were there people saying that if it doesn't cause cancer in everyone, or if you can't say exactly how many cigarettes someone has to smoke in order for them to have cancer, or even how many years they have to smoke to get this result, then it just isn't settled science ?

For more on the scientific method and how it isn't nearly everything you think it is in science.

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/whats-wrong-with-the-scientific-method/

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/problems-%E2%80%98-scientific-method%E2%80%99

Also, even when experiments are done to confirm, often the theories are accepted as probably true before they are verified, based simply on the physics and the Math. Example: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2077087-einsteins-last-theory-confirmed-a-guide-to-gravitational-waves/

marcus says

Is Geology a science ?

Yes. And it proves that the climate has been changing throughout geologic history.
marcus says

According to you, if they can't take in to account all variables and a highly complex system coming up with perfect predictions, then we can't use the warming that has occurred as confirmation of their theory.

What warming? One degree over a century does not a hockey stick make.

Why can't alarmists accept that their theories and models on co2 caused CAGW have been proven wrong?

The best approach to pollution, resource depletion , and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is to limit population size in first world countries. A person in a first world country uses 100x the resources as a person in the third world. If you really were concerned for the environment, stopping illegal immigration into the US and the refugee migrations into Europe would be top order. The first world is already stabilizing the birth rate, and the idea that immigration is needed to counter the "lower fertility" is absurd. The USA was prosperous with a population of 200 million and would still be prosperous if we had a slow decline back to that number.

Most "climate change" proponents would never push for immigration halt. That is because the whole "climate change" push is political and all solutions push some form of vote Democrat. Slowing immigration is thought to mean less Democrat voters, and is thus overlooked as a solution.

HeadSet says

The best approach to pollution, resource depletion , and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is to limit population size in first world countries. A person in a first world country uses 100x the resources as a person in the third world.

I don't think this is true if you consider that 3rd world countries still burn forests to make land for cattle etc. Also they reproduce much more. Some 1st world countries have declining populations, many if you subtract 3rd world immigrants.

I don't think this is true if you consider that 3rd world countries still burn forests to make land for cattle etc.

To continually burn forests means you have to let the forests grow back. Compare that to first world water use (showers, dishwashers, clothes washers, lawn, car wash), burning of hydrocarbons (gasoline, electrical generation, heating homes, air travel) and trash generation (unused food, paper, bottles, packaging) and you will see that indeed the ration is 100 to one. Keep in mind that we may not burn forests, but we sure clear a few to keep building homes, strip malls, factories and related sprawl that comes with increasing population.

HeadSet says

I don't think this is true if you consider that 3rd world countries still burn forests to make land for cattle etc.

To continually burn forests means you have to let the forests grow back. Compare that to first world water use (showers, dishwashers, clothes washers, lawn, car wash), burning of hydrocarbons (gasoline, electrical generation, heating homes, air travel) and trash generation (unused food, paper, bottles, packaging) and you will see that indeed the ration is 100 to one. Keep in mind that we may not burn forests, but we sure clear a few to keep building homes, strip malls, factories and related sprawl that comes with increasing population.

I'm skeptical wrt 100:1 but either way we are nations of consumers and wasters, so we should continue making progress. Although the landfills have been steadily receding, so I think waste has gone down. Eventually though it is a population problem and as mentioned most western nations are only growing due to 3rd world immigration. Def. slowing immigration will help. Unused food is indeed a great embarrassment but you know well that - due to stupid policies - many people and more-so businesses are forced to throw the tons of unused food we generate everyday away because that one homeless person getting sick from spoilage will sue the business out of existence. Nevermind that the chances of spoiled food from an individual or business are far less than those from a thrash-can.

marcus says

The future (relative to when they predicted it) has shown them to be correct.

Source?

Hypothesis: "the earth will warm because Americans are farting more"

Does the earth warming prove americans are farting more?

To show actual evidence of a valid theory, the modeling and results would need to match empirical evidence. Without proper modeling even a valid concept is useless.

marcus says

Now you're going to change your rules

I never established rules or a hypothesis. I am merely skeptical of the movement w good reasons. It is your job, or the job if anyone who wants to suggest global warming initiatives are required to prove the initiatives are worth the cost.

Do you believe that Africans shouldn't have AC for example? How about cars? How about 2500 sqft homes? Should poor people worldwide pay an extra gas tax that an international bureaucracy wastes?

The massive cost of the global warming initiatives require solid evidence which I have yet to see.

Given the unscientific narrative, this looks like a pure power grab. Leaving the Paris accord looks like a great decision.

marcus says

According to you, if they can't take in to account all variables and a highly complex system coming up with perfect predictions, then we can't use the warming that has occurred as confirmation of their theory.

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

You are purposely ignoring nuance.

The global warming debate is specifically about the MODELING of the results. It's the model we question. No one is doubting that carbon dioxide is having an effect. The question is HOW MUCH? The decisions to fix the problem are all based ON HOW MUCH is man made vs natural fluctuations. It's not a yes or no question. It's a question of degree. (Literally and figuratively.)

So yes, if no scientist can show a model that is at least passably accurate, then they shouldn't be suggesting multi-trillion dollar worldwide initiatives. This type of haphazard science will hurt far more than it will help.

CBOEtrader says

No one is doubting that carbon dioxide is having an effect.

The question about co2 is what kind of effect?
Co2 is a trace "greenhouse" gas that with all the other greenhouse gases stops some of the sun's heat from radiating back into space.CBOEtrader says

The question is HOW MUCH?

As far as keeping heat in, co2 has not shown much effect when comparing the small temperature rise versus the predicted spike. Co2 has doubled while temperature has changed very little.

Co2 is essential for life. More co2 helps plant growth. Greenhouse farmers double the ambient co2 with no adverse effect to the growers and great effect to the plants.

Onvacation says

Co2 is essential for life. More co2 helps plant growth. Greenhouse farmers double the ambient co2 with no adverse effect to the growers and great effect to the plants.

Not to mention, while CO2 does have insulating properties, there are other "greenhouse" gases that theoretically are 10x times as green housy as CO2. Other than wanting to attack modern civilization, I don't really understand why the alarmists made CO2 public enemy number 1.

The Feedback mechanisms are poorly understood. More evap=more cloud cover+more rock erosion=more sunlight reflected back into space and more carbon sequestering.

HeadSet says

The best approach to pollution, resource depletion , and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is to limit population size in first world countries.

Agree in principle, but I think the goal should be achieving a slight negative global population growth.

What's the point of decreasing the average environmental footprint by a half if population growth doubles every 7 years or so. No green agenda can win against population growth. Limiting population growth should be THE green agenda. Seems like it should be an easy Right/Left collaboration.

The problem is what policies are introduced to this effect. China's one child policy was a failure. How about a two child policy, where the third child draws tax liabilities?

Malcolm says

Other than wanting to attack modern civilization

Control modern civilization.

Onvacation says

The question about co2 is what kind of effect?
Co2 is a trace "greenhouse" gas that with all the other greenhouse gases stops some of the sun's heat from radiating back into space.

Yes, that pesky trace gas CO2 is the one causing the planet to overheat... Please don't look at the water vapor.... SQUIRREL !!!

Sure, we'll believe that...

Sniper says

SQUIRREL

Somebody has been hangin out with dogs too much.

Malcolm says

I don't really understand why the alarmists made CO2 public enemy number 1.

They hate cars.

just_passing_through says

They hate cars.

They hate other people’s carsand how they slow them down on their way into work.

CBOEtrader says

uggesting multi-trillion dollar worldwide initiatives

That's a little extreme. But you have to realize that investing a lot of money in 4th or 5th generation nuclear, possibly thorium, or other cutting edge and fairly efficient forms of enerrgy, and giving the fossil fuels a rest, is probably good for humanity regardless of the impact on AGW. Why wouldn't we do it when money is cheap ? (interest rates that is) But it does deny certain big interests some of their near and medium term profits. THat's really the only issue here. It's no big financial risk to put pressure bringing other energy sources online. Aren't we going to need it for electric cars anyway ?

Wtf is going on ??


marcus says

When the consensus finally agreed that cigarette smoking causes cancer, were there people saying that if it doesn't cause cancer in everyone, or if you can't say exactly how many cigarettes someone has to smoke in order for them to have cancer, or even how many years they have to smoke to get this result, then it just isn't settled science ?

yeah, I know quoting myself is kind of lame. But I don't have much else to say to CBOE other than that.

CBOEtrader says

The global warming debate is specifically about the MODELING of the results. It's the model we question. No one is doubting that carbon dioxide is having an effect. The question is HOW MUCH? The decisions to fix the problem are all based ON HOW MUCH is man made vs natural fluctuations. It's not a yes or no question. It's a question of degree. (Literally and figuratively.)

What is your backup plan if man made co2 is the problem and spirals out of control? At the least would be the eliminating 100+ years of fossil fuel industry written self serving policies/regulations and the elimination of outright subsidies of fossil fuels would be reasonable. Don't worry though, there is no danger of that as long as the republican party is simply a front for big corporate money.

What is your backup plan if man made co2 is the problem and spirals out of control?

This still gets back to population. If you really think the problem "will spiral out of control" you should be seriously banging the drum on sustainable humanity. That is, keeping the numbers in check by stopping 3rd world immigration and eliminating welfare and tax policies that pay people to breed. Less people will need less resources, and the lower energy consumption would allow solar, wind, nuke, geothermal and other renewables to actually produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels.

The emphasis on "carbon" is just an excuse for political control. i can sum up the "carbon" debate like this - "Climate change is real and we must vote Democrat to keep the fossil fuel industry in line." Also, let's have a new tax in the form of "Carbon Credits." Trading Carbon Credits not only provide a new tax source, but give the added bonus of a new profit source for Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street Democrat donors.

Note also that burning fossil fuels produces water vapor, a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. You never hear about a "Hydro Footprint" since that would sound silly to the general public, who would then laugh off attempts at control.

HEYYOU says

last April happened to be the third-warmest April ever recorded globally, according to the NOAA report released Thursday. Carbon dioxide levels also hit another milestone by reaching the “highest level in recorded history at 410 parts per million” last month"

If the co2 is at an all time high why is the temperature cooling?

bob2356 says

What is your backup plan if man made co2 is the problem and spirals out of control?

Move up the hill.

It looks like one cannot say 'If you are not smart enough to understand 2+2=4, then you should go back to school or stop trying to understand math.' One could see such a comment as a personal attack. Or, you could see it as just stating the obvious. Apparently, stating the obvious truth is too personal for some people. We will have to go along believing that 2+2=nobody knows. Otherwise, oh no - FEELINGS.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

FEELINGS

Feelings are what the whole CAGW fraud is about. Remember the drowning polar bears? When is Manhattan and Florida going under water? How much has the temperature risen? What is the ideal temperature for human life? Can they really measure worldwide average temperature down to hundredths of a degree?

These are questions the alarmists have no answer for. Instead they revert to calling the sceptics stupid as they have no answers themselves.

Onvacation says

These are qiestions the alarmists have no answer for. Instead they revert to calling the sceptics stupid as they have no answers themselves.

I'm still waiting for a picture actually showing even the slightest change in sea level somewhere. None of these arm chair scientists have ever been able to produce one.

I remember a duck that predicted all the arctic ice would melt. He ended up ignoring me as the facts got in the way of his pontificating.

There was this other guy from Florida who wanted the fossil fuel companies to pay, but was unwilling to give up his custom red sports volva.

And then the most famous alarmist, Al Gore, wants you to give up modern existence while his carbon footprint is hundreds of times bigger than the average. Al says it's OK because he has carbon credits that neutralize his extravagance. If you feel guilty about producing too much co2 Al will sell you some carbon credits, or you can limit co2 by holding your breath.

It's hard for an individual to give up on idea that they have been brainwashed into. They typically turn to personal attack when the facts are against them.

2016 was "THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER". It was 4/100ths of a degree hotter than 2015.
Onvacation says

Can they really measure worldwide average temperature down to hundredths of a degree?

It just seems ridiculous to talk about a worldwide average temperature that can be measured down to hundredths of a degree.

marcus says

Onvacation says

It just seems ridiculous to talk about a worldwide average temperature that can be measured down to hundredths of a degree.

When you average hundreds or thousands of numbers that are accurate to 1 or 2 tenths of a degree, you get a number that should probably be rounded to the nearest thousandth of a degree, for comparative purposes. Certainly at least to the one hundredths place.

Here's a mini example for you. Average 5 and 6 and you get 5.5. How can that happen when I'm averaging two integers ? Shouldn't the average be an integer too ?

Not sure why I'm explaining this to the same guy that thinks a brief cooling trend in the midst of a thirty year uptrend with higher highs and higher lows (thats the definition of an uptrent - the "higher lows" refer to the lows of down swings, which by definition occur in an uptrend)

marcus says

Not sure why I'm explaining this

Me neither.

Please link to the calculations where thousands of thermometers are used to find the average year long temperature for the entire world with accuracy down to hundredths of a degree for the last century.

Onvacation says

Please link to the calculations where thousands of thermometers are used to find the average year long temperature for the entire world with accuracy down to hundredths of a degree for the last century.

Even if you were averaging 100 numbers that were accurate to plus or minus on tenth of a degree, you would get an average that is accurate to one hundredth of a degree. The fact that this is hard for you to grasp is consistent with the fact that you think a downswing within an uptrend constitutes a significant downtrend.

That is, unless they always rounded up on the readings. But even then for year to year comparison purposes (considering differences from year to year) they would be accurate to the one hundredths place.

But hey, it takes all kinds as they say. Maybe there's an audience with a similar ummm, perspective (let's call it) to yours, that will appreciate your insights.

marcus says

Even if you were averaging 100 numbers that were accurate to plus or minus on tenth of a degree, you would get an average that is accurate to one hundredth of a degree.

Assuming you were measuring the same thing and you weren't taking the temperature of the water in a bucket hauled up to the rail of a whaling ship in the 1890 arctic.

marcus says

The fact that this is hard for you to grasp

Like I said, when the alarmist have no answers they go personal.

Still waiting for a link to
Onvacation says

calculations where thousands of thermometers are used to find the average year long temperature for the entire world with accuracy down to hundredths of a degree for the last century.

But suspect I will get more personal attacks.

Onvacation says

marcus says

The fact that this is hard for you to grasp

Like I said, when the alarmist have no answers they go personal.

100%

The process is fundamental to the debate. Is there a link summarizing how these measurements are collected?

marcus says

Even if you were averaging 100 numbers that were accurate to plus or minus on tenth of a degree, you would get an average that is accurate to one hundredth of a degree.

I will play.

So if I took a thousand readings from all over the globe that were acurate down to 1/10 of one degree and added them together and then divided the sum by one thousand we would get the average temp of all those places down to hundredths of a degree? What does that even mean? Does anyone have a link to the methodology of measuring average global temperature?
The illogic of the alarmists is religious.

Onvacation says

Like I said, when the alarmist have no answers they go personal.

No, I was honestly surprised.

Maybe you're just TPB under a different name, and you're trolling. You think it's a victory if you can get me to explain something simple to you. But okay, if that's the case you win.

Here's an example, simpler, but the same concept. Say you use a random number generator to generate numbers between 6 and 7 inclusive, accurate to the tenths place. Suppose these are true random numbers, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, ........6.9, 7.0

But you always round to the 6 or seven, whichever is closest. If it's 6.5, you flip a coin, heads you call it 6, tails you call it 7. You do this one thousand times, using true random numbers to generate the tenths place.

So you have one thousand numbers and each is either 6 or 7 due to rounding by as much as .5., you add these 6 and 7s together and divide by 1000, getting an average very close to 6.5, give or take a few hundredths. Which will be extremely close to the actual average of the original numbers between 6 and 7, without rounding them.

How can that be ? If all the numbers were 6s and 7s, how can I get an average that so much closer to the actual average than 6 or 7 are (the actual inputs in to the average) ?

Or how about this. Say you have two groups of people, and each group has 1000 people in it. The heights of all the people are measured carefully, always rounded to the nearest inch. If it looks exactly half way in between 2 inch values, to the extent they can't say, then they round up. This procedure is done the same way by the same people using the same devices to measure.

So say that the average for one group is .41 inches higher than the other. Do you think the one average really is higher than the other ? That is, that the average height of the one group really is .41 inches taller than the other? Even though the resolution of the measurement was to the nearest inch ?

Yes or no ?