Why Climate Change is a Religion and not Science https://www.topbuzz.com/@malcolmshaw/why-climate-change-is-a-religion-and-not-science-CgJAbZ6OOVo
« prev   random   next »

5
9

Why Climate Change is a Religion and not Science https://www.topbuzz.com/@malcolmshaw/why-climate-change-is-a-religion-and-not-science-CgJAbZ6OOVo

By Malcolm following x   2018 Jan 10, 2:26pm 1,408 views   94 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


An article that I wrote on TopBuzz exploring some of my own observations.

https://www.topbuzz.com/@malcolmshaw/why-climate-change-is-a-religion-and-not-science-CgJAbZ6OOVo

I have put out an internet challenge that no one seems to want to take me up on. It is simple. I am agnostic. While I technically fall into the "skeptic" or "denier" category, it is simply because I question the methodology and the politics of man-made climate-change science. I am open to being convinced, but no one seems to be able to provide anything other than future predictions. So, for the Patrick.net crowd, the same challenge I have made before, to please show me one prior doom and gloom climate change prediction that actually came true, or to show me a past and present picture demonstrating rising sea level.

I know the trolls and vicious defenders of man caused climate change will just assume that I haven't looked up the readily available evidence for climate change. Before you attack me, be forewarned that I have probably got considerable evidence to support being skeptical.

Here is a GIF I made of a famous landmark in San Diego. The Coronado Bridge was built in the late 60s. You will notice that the high waterline is pretty much in the same place. I live on the Pacific Coast. It has been alleged that sea level rise is magnified on this coast, yet I can also show pictures much older that again have no noticeable difference on the high water line.



Here is a 130 year span showing no rise at La Jolla Cove.


Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/01/if-sea-level-was-rising-wouldnt-someone-have-noticed/

« First    « Previous     Comments 41 - 80 of 94     Next »     Last »

41   Satoshi_Nakamoto   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 10, 8:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_08dee says
Does anyone know if the Russian troll farms are getting involved with this topic now ?


Always have been. Their main effort was in peddling "fracking is baaaaad", "pipelines are daaaangerous", "tar sands development is hooorrrible" kind of shit. Because grows of US domestic oil and gas production and subsequent lowering of prices and push into the markets they deem theirs is threatening one of the two legs the fucking "Energy Superpower" stands on.
42   Onvacation   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 6:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

WookieMan says
Fascinating thread. I guess I'm possibly an idiot for deferring to the experts when they tell me the earth is not nearly flat

You're not an idiot.
anon_08dee says
or that sea level has gone up by however much it has

It has. But it is not covering Manhattan.

Maybe you have been duped by the alarmists?
43   Onvacation   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 7:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_08dee says
Maybe it's comedy

Maybe.
Some alarmists are religious in their zeal.
44   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 7:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
WookieMan says
Fascinating thread. I guess I'm possibly an idiot for deferring to the experts when they tell me the earth is not nearly flat

You're not an idiot.

Not my quote, but thanks for the kind words.
45   BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 7:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

What the Libbies should collect from your paycheck in order to save us from climate swings
WookieMan says
Why is there another climate change thread? These should be banned. If the science is right all of us die and so do our kids. If it's wrong, we all die at some point anyway. I don't get what we're arguing
46   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 8:05am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

BlueSardine says
What the Libbies should collect from your paycheck in order to save us from climate swings

Libbies & Repubs are getting our money one way or another. Fight the good fight I suppose. I just don't know why we go back and forth here with sometimes 2 or 3 of these threads a week on patnet knowing that NO ONE here is going to change their position.

First world countries are naturally going towards cleaner energy from my perspective. I think or would hope everyone here agrees that's a good thing. Deniers included. So on a per capita basis we're likely reducing emissions, this is good.

On the other hand the believers think there's something that can be done about it. There's no magic bullet to have a net decrease in pollution/emissions/CO2. While our per capita pollution has decreased, we've just added more people to the world that keep the overall levels the same or increasing. Besides population control or outright banning of a polluting activities and massively lowering the quality of life, I've yet to hear to logical solution to all this.

Do I want my kids to live on a polluted, disgusting earth, no. Do I want them to be forced to live a certain way by our government to try and reverse something that is very likely not reversible, no. This is all I'm getting at. Enjoy life. You've only got one and arguing about something where there is literally never going to be a winner is kind of a fools errand.

I rest my case on these climate change threads. Have fun with the back and forth though I suppose. Both sides aren't changing the path that we're on.
47   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 8:20am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The Greenhouse Effect (GE) is established science, the 1st law of thermodynamics (1LT) is established science. Global warming (GW) follows directly from GE and 1LT.

People who argue against GW are arguing against basic physics. They are ignorants, and a large fraction of them are ideologically driven ignorants. There is no other way to say it.

https://patrick.net/post/1313015/2018-01-10-co2-greenhouse-effect-in-details
48   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 9:00am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Science is not truth. Science is the process by which we attempt to find truth.

Anyone who thinks any science is “settled” clearly has no clue about what science even is!
49   anon_08dee   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 11, 9:05am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Does anyone know if the Russian troll farms are getting involved with this topic now ?

Fossil fuels are more important to certain Russian oligarchs than even the Koch brothers.

Fascinating thread. I guess I'm possibly an idiot for deferring to the experts when they tell me the earth is not nearly flat, or that sea level has gone up by however much it has. No offense, but it takes someone very disrespectful of academia and scholarship in general, not to mention critical thinking as thing that exists, to think that sea level changes (something so incredibly easy to verity) have not been verified in thousands of places, six ways from Sunday.

Maybe it's comedy ? Showing photos to show sea level hasn't gone up 5 inches, when tide is something like 24 inches. Wtf ?
50   Patrick   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 9:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_08dee says
Does anyone know if the Russian troll farms are getting involved with this topic now ?


If they are, it's not from Russia itself. I have banned the whole country by IP address ranges. Not because of political posts, just because of relentless spam.
51   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 9:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Quigley says
Anyone who thinks any science is “settled” clearly has no clue about what science even is!


Its hard to imagine that anyone will argue against the most basic and fundamental physical laws, but apparently some will.
52   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 9:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_08dee says
Fascinating thread. I guess I'm possibly an idiot for deferring to the experts when they tell me the earth is not nearly flat, or that sea level has gone up by however much it has. No offense, but it takes someone very disrespectful of academia and scholarship in general, not to mention critical thinking as thing that exists, to think that sea level changes (something so incredibly easy to verity) have not been verified in thousands of places, six ways from Sunday.

Maybe it's comedy ? Showing photos to show sea level hasn't gone up 5 inches, when tide is something like 24 inches. Wtf ?


If it is a comedy, it is a tragical farce. Not accounting for time variation of local sea levels due to tidal conditions is a glaring mistake. But that is not going to stop the ideologically-driven and scientifically ignorant. And by the way, the high-waterline does not establish what percentage of the time the water is at what level, nor is it accurate enough to establish anything significant from these far-away photos.

But: back to basics: Greenhouse effect and the laws of thermodynamics imply global warming. End of story.
53   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 9:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

What better than an unmeasurable and unsee-able metric lost in the normal tidal variations to prove Global Warming.
54   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 9:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Ceffer says
What better than un unmeasurable and unsee-able metric lost in the normal tidal variations to prove Global Warming.


(sarc) What better than than a highly inaccurate methodology to "prove" that sea levels did not rise?

Greenhouse effect and the laws of thermodynamics imply global warming. End of story.
55   Onvacation   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 9:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

justme says
The Greenhouse Effect (GE) is established science

Is the relationship between co2 and heat linear? If not linear what is the relationship?
Just because a possible effect is recognized does not mean the science is settled.
56   Onvacation   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 9:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

justme says

People who argue against GW are arguing against basic physics. They are ignorants, and a large fraction of them are ideologically driven ignorants. There is no other way to say it.

Said like a true believer. Is there anything that will change your belief? If the temperature continues to decline will you revisit your ideology or just continue to make excuses?
57   Onvacation   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 9:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

justme says

Greenhouse effect and the laws of thermodynamics imply global warming. End of story.

Imply? So it might be something else?
58   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 11:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
Imply? So it might be something else?


NO, it might not be "something else". In mathematical logic, A implies B, written A ==> B, means that B must always be true if A is true. I'm writing in the mathematical sense, not in some colloquial/rhetorical sense.
59   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 11:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

justme says
Its hard to imagine that anyone will argue against the most basic and fundamental physical laws, but apparently some will.


Want to name one of these? Or give me an example? Just one. Perhaps you’ll choose “gravity.” That would be fun to refute!
60   Tenpoundbass   ignore (6)   2018 Jan 11, 11:40am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Malcolm says
Here is a 130 year span showing no rise at La Jolla Cove.


Any Idiot can look at the original Nautical maps showing Fort Jefferson, it has the same footprint in the surrounding Atlantic as it did 125 years ago.
One side of the Fort was built right at the water edge. The other side has about 100ft of beach landing for docking boats for supplies. Looks exactly unchanged.
61   Tenpoundbass   ignore (6)   2018 Jan 11, 11:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Climate Change is all about Academic and Political promises made to each other. They had a fucking deal we were supposed to go along with it. Al Gore was already shopping for a new summer island.
62   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 11:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

justme says
laws of thermodynamics imply global warming


Is this one of those science laws you hold forth as being truth? Which law exactly helps us determine that runaway global warming is happening? Zeroth law? 1st law? I’m assuming you’d like to skip over that inconvenient 2nd law which states:
“In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind (machines that spontaneously convert thermal energy into mechanical work) are impossible.”
Entropy always increasing means heat is always lost from the system, which is tragic for folks who are trying to believe that it’s not going anywhere due to carbon dioxide.

Still waiting on that pristine and shining scientific law that equates with absolute truth!
63   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 11, 12:04pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Quigley says
Entropy always increasing means heat is always lost from the system

Entropy increasing means that exergy decreases, but not enthalpy. Heat loss is a function of enthalpy. Your statement isn't correct.
64   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 12:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
Entropy increasing means that exergy decreases, but not enthalpy


Enthalpy MUST decrease, else the constant input of energy from the sun would raise it to an unsustainable degree fairly quickly. As it increases, it must also decrease. Trees are good at this, absorbing energy from the solar radiation and using it to make plant matter. So are the zooplankton in the oceans. But the largest energy loss each day is through infrared radiation to outer space. In any sustained system that has energy input, enthalpy must decrease or the system will become unsustainable.
65   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 12:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
If the temperature continues to decline will you revisit your ideology or just continue to make excuses?


If the temperature continues to increase will stop denying it increases?










66   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 1:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Quigley says
As it increases, it must also decrease.


Among the rampant meaningless babble, this particular sentence stands out. (Is there any greater insult to a right-winger than saying that he sounds almost CLINTONIAN?)
67   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 1:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Quigley says
Is this one of those science laws you hold forth as being truth? Which law exactly helps us determine that runaway global warming is happening? Zeroth law? 1st law?


QUOTE of myself: The Greenhouse Effect (GE) is established science, the 1st law of thermodynamics (1LT) is established science. Global warming (GW) follows directly from GE and 1LT.

It would help if you actually read what I had written before you start attacking it. OTOH, perhaps it would make no difference to your false argumentation.
68   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 1:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says
If the temperature continues to increase....


That is great data that shows the result of the greenhouse effect. Keep in mind however that data just gives the physics-deniers even more stuff to invent meaningless and false quibbles about. The main goal still has to be to get them to understand and accept the greenhouse effect.
69   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 1:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

justme says
Global warming (GW) follows directly from GE and 1LT.


That’s called “making a statement” which is not in any way “science.”
Think you’re right about this? Write me a proof.
All established science can be proved and replicated. Everything else is just a theory.
70   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 11, 1:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

justme says
The main goal still has to be to get them to understand and accept the greenhouse effect.

They will still say that it is not possible to quantify. Nevermind that it was estimated pretty accurately with pencil and paper 100 yrs ago, and was estimated very accurately in 1967. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#411ab8be6614 The fact that Arrhenius did it so well shows that relatively simple estimations can capture the essence. This backs up your point that it can be related back to first principles without losing too much detail.
71   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 11, 1:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Quigley says
Write me a proof.

You actually made a decent proof for him when you were trying to defend your statement about enthalpy and entropy.
72   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 1:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Okay, I will spell out how Global warming (GW) follows directly from GE (Greenhouse effect) and 1LT (1st Law of Thermodynamics)

First a definition: By (planet) earth is meant all the physical matter of the earth, including land, water, ice and the atmosphere.

GE: Greenhouse effect implies that with increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the earth's balance of energy absorbed from the sun and emitted back to space will change so that more energy is absorbed and less energy is emitted.

1LT: The 1st law of thermodynamics states that deltaU=Q-W, where U is the internal energy (of the earth in this case), Q is the net heat absorption (positive when CO2 is increasing), and W is the work done by earth on the surrounding space, which is zero. Hence deltaU=Q>0. So the internal energy of the earth increases. The increase in internal energy will be observable as an increase in the temperature of earth (although the energy may temporarily take the form of kinetic energy such as wind, or potential energy such as water vapor lifted up in the atmosphere, in case anyone wondered).

The net result is that earth temperature will rise just enough that outbound heat radiation again balances the incoming radiation from the sun.The temperature will manifest itself as an AVERAGE increase in air temperature, land temperature, water (ocean etc) temperature, and, yes, ice temperature (some of which will cause the ice to melt).

There you have it. I'm already waiting for the dishonest and errant quibbles to start.
73   anon_f45f6   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 1:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_08dee says
Showing photos to show sea level hasn't gone up 5 inches, when tide is something like 24 inches. Wtf ?

In San Diego difference between highest and lowest tide is around 7 feet. So yeah - even if the most extreme predictions of sea level rise come true, for the next 100 year you can still make a picture of the same place with exactly the same sea level, and use it as a proof, that sea level is not rising.
Bonus points - go now, carve something into a rock at high tide, and continue making photos every month when water level is exactly the same. Repeat for 1200 months.
irrefutable evidence is yours.
74   anon_61c8a   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 1:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Quigley says
Enthalpy MUST decrease

Still not correct. Quigley says
else the constant input of energy from the sun would raise it to an unsustainable degree fairly quickly

If heat were transferred to the earth with no heat loss, the temperature would increase over time. That part is true. However, if in a theoretical case 1 unit of heat were transferred to earth and one unit were transferred elsewhere, enthalpy would remain constant despite the heat loss. None of that has anything to do with entropy, which has to do with reversibility and the direction of heat transfer in a specific situation.
75   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 2:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_f45f6 says
In San Diego difference between highest and lowest tide is around 7 feet. So yeah - even if the most extreme predictions of sea level rise come true, for the next 100 year you can still make a picture of the same place with exactly the same sea level, and use it as a proof, that sea level is not rising.
Bonus points - go now, carve something into a rock at high tide, and continue making photos every month when water level is exactly the same. Repeat for 1200 months.
irrefutable evidence is yours.


Bingo, that's the point of comparing high water lines. Nature does just what you say, and over time, if the sea level has risen, the high water line, that gets stained onto some rocks and concrete will have to move up, otherwise no rise. The extent of the tides is meaningless, these pictures are not staged at some particular time, it is only to compare the high water line to demonstrate no apparent change. Admittedly, the resolution is such that I can't prove no change, but it is a start to observe, just as you say.
76   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 3:32pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

justme says
W is the work done by earth on the surrounding space, which is zero.


Not your first mistake, but certainly the most aggregious. By simplifying W to “work” and declaring that it’s zero, you negate all the various forms of energy emissions the earth performs to keep us all from cooking in a vile stew of disjointed hydrocarbons. I’ve listed them above. You’re forgetting that the earth is not a closed system. Treating it as such, you have to ignore the input of solar radiation and the output of infrared emissions, photosynthesis, water phase change (solid to liquid to gas all require energy to change phase), and I’m sure others. It’s not a closed system. It’s open to the universe and the universe acts upon our planet constantly. Clouds can trap warmer air, but they also do a great job of reflecting sunlight that would warm the ground. More heat leads to more clouds, leads to more rain which cools the air and ground as it phase changes back to vapor.
77   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 11, 6:35pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

In thermo, work has a specific meaning. It refers to mechanical work. He accounted for solar radiation and infrared emissions by referring to net heat absorption. Internal energy (U) includes chemical energy so photosynthesis is included. Evaporation doesn't change U. It takes energy to evaporate, but that doesn't change U of the system. It results in a temperature drop (relative to temperature in absence of evaporation).
78   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 8:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
In thermo, work has a specific meaning. It refers to mechanical work. He accounted for solar radiation and infrared emissions by referring to net heat absorption. Internal energy (U) includes chemical energy so photosynthesis is included. Evaporation doesn't change U. It takes energy to evaporate, but that doesn't change U of the system. It results in a temperature drop (relative to temperature in absence of evaporation).


Exactly. Quigley, you just failed physics again.
79   anon_08dee   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 11, 9:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

You guys are getting to technical. I want to just make dumb ass assertions about the footprint of some island and photos that contradict thousands of data points gathered by scientists.

We don't need no stnkin smarty pants academics and scientists. Kill them all.
80   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 10:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

This should take care of most of the criticisms. Remember, I simply asked for anyone to show me tangible proof of sea level rise, not one picture, nothing has been provided here and other places that I have asked. Instead of proving climate change, the alarmist side insists on us disproving climate change. I was asked to cite things that everyone over 40 remembers, like show me where they predicted global cooling. Show me a paper that didn't come true. Well, this video shows all of that, with actual images of the papers. If you watch this and don't at least question the scientific consensus on man made climate change, formerly known as global warming, then we will simply be at an impasse until 2050 when we'll see if regular commercial ships are making the North Passage.



P.S. Stop the video at 37:39 and cllick on this link. It is sure to get a little chuckle: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/09/18/immediacy-threat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/

« First    « Previous     Comments 41 - 80 of 94     Next »     Last »


Comment as anon_bb286 or log in at top of page: