| New research combats the poor reasoning that influences climate-change denial01-03-2018 00:02 |
Josip123☆☆☆☆☆
(1) |
Hello,
Here's an interesting article about the "naysayers" of climate change. It also includes a youtube video that discusses why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change.
Article : http://www.evolving-science.com/environment/new-research-combats-poor-reasoning-influences-climate-change-denial-00583 |
| 01-03-2018 19:43 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
This video is factually incorrect and full of the normal BS, however, everyone should look at this.
It discusses psychology used to get people to get on board the AGW band wagon. I think we should all be aware of the tactics being used by this crowd. This is really scary shit as they will begin selling this crock as a good friendly competition. Can you be more green than your neighbor? However, what they are really doing is an evil class warfare type of propaganda where Bob is looked down on by his community because he is not very Green. The Ozone hole scare didn't work, global cooling didn't work, global warming didn't work, climate change ain't working, so now they'll try and have your community shame you into it. There is nothing they won't stoop to.
You are looking for this video at the bottom of the page.
Attached image:
Edited on 01-03-2018 19:46 |
| 02-03-2018 00:54 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Josip123 wrote:
Hello,
Here's an interesting article about the "naysayers" of climate change. It also includes a youtube video that discusses why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change.
Article : http://www.evolving-science.com/environment/new-research-combats-poor-reasoning-influences-climate-change-denial-00583
Humans aren't "bad" about thinking about climate change. In fact when presented with the facts they are quite good at it. What are the facts presented by the wild-eyed leftist environmentalists that have seized control of the NASA projects on climate? That COMPUTER MODELS SHOW WARMING that not only is not proven by actual temperature measurements both by ground stations but by satellite measurements as well.
Who are the people developing these "scientific theories" or as that asinine story puts it, "Recent reports suggest that the level of consensus among scientists working in relevant fields on the subject of climate patterns is 97%."
There is very little in the matter of "relevant fields". Virtually every scientific field has some connection to information on the climate of this planet be it physics, astrophysics, chemistry, geology or anything else. That number is so phony that any actual scientist saw through it immediately. Anyone that would quote such a number is not a scientist and knows nothing about science.
There are NO degrees issued in "climate science" and there never will be because of the breadth of the specialties involved. Only a couple of schools offer "climate science courses" and most of those are either pure hogwash or so generalized that they are meaningless work-time.
Not only has NASA manufactured data but they have changed that data at least three times since the environmentalists have taken charge of the NASA climate programs.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
If we look at NASA's temperature curve we see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
Pay particular attention to the time from 1979 to the present.
If we look at the temperature curves from the NASA weather satellites in this time period kept by the man who was the head of the weather satellite program we see:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
This plainly shows the hoax perpetrated on the people of the entire world.
We had the Maunder Minimum or "little ice age" 1650 to 1710 we then had another cold period though not as extreme for another 30 years. This caused almost an entire freezing over and glaciation in Greenland and very bad conditions in Iceland and Northern Europe. We also have proof that this was a world wide event. Even geological evidence from New Zealand.
Since that time the glaciers at lower latitudes such as Greenland have been melting and so sea levels have been slowly rising. The lower latitude glaciers are almost back to the altitudes they were at the beginning of the little ice age and have mostly stopped melting.
We have sea level measurements from the US Civil War onward. They showed a steady rise of 1 mm a year. Suddenly NASA decided that we, contrary to the actual measurements, were having a sea level rise of 2 mm per year. Why was this? They decided to claim without any real evidence that the Earth's mantle was shrinking from cooling at the rate of 1 mm per year. This of course would mean that the oceans had to suddenly have started rising at twice the measured rate in order to show the same change in measured levels.
Well to begin with even 1mm is questionable. If we had measure that amount of rise since the civil war that would be a 15 cm rise (6 inches) and none of the major ports in the world have detected any such rises. In fact the Marshal Islands that were predicted to disappear under the rising oceans have actually gained land area.
As someone that is an electronics engineer that has spent most of his life in research and development I have worked in science almost my entire life. One of the sciences I know is spectroscopy and I can tell you for absolute certain that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere if it is above about 200 ppm. But if you want a second opinion:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
It is my opinion that you are probably a young person without any science training. And that without any credentials you can neither research nor understand any real information pertinent to these questions.
..people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. -- Mark Twain. |
| 02-03-2018 02:20 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Josip123 wrote:
Hello,
Here's an interesting article about the "naysayers" of climate change. It also includes a youtube video that discusses why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change.
Article : http://www.evolving-science.com/environment/new-research-combats-poor-reasoning-influences-climate-change-denial-00583
Josip,
My primary complaint would be that the peer review process is often bypassed. I think this is changing now that CO2 is no longer the primary reason for climate change. With the continued research in deep faults, hydrothermal vents and under water volcanism that a broader, more open perspective is being considered. |
| 02-03-2018 03:59 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
Wake wrote:
Josip123 wrote:
Hello,
Here's an interesting article about the "naysayers" of climate change. It also includes a youtube video that discusses why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change.
Article : http://www.evolving-science.com/environment/new-research-combats-poor-reasoning-influences-climate-change-denial-00583
Humans aren't "bad" about thinking about climate change. In fact when presented with the facts they are quite good at it. What are the facts presented by the wild-eyed leftist environmentalists that have seized control of the NASA projects on climate? That COMPUTER MODELS SHOW WARMING that not only is not proven by actual temperature measurements both by ground stations but by satellite measurements as well.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, not even by satellites.
Wake wrote:
Who are the people developing these "scientific theories" or as that asinine story puts it, "Recent reports suggest that the level of consensus among scientists working in relevant fields on the subject of climate patterns is 97%."
There is very little in the matter of "relevant fields". Virtually every scientific field has some connection to information on the climate of this planet be it physics, astrophysics, chemistry, geology or anything else. That number is so phony that any actual scientist saw through it immediately. Anyone that would quote such a number is not a scientist and knows nothing about science.
True. They also know nothing about statistical mathematics.
Wake wrote:
There are NO degrees issued in "climate science" and there never will be because of the breadth of the specialties involved.
No, because 'climate' is not a quantifiable term. Science has no theories about unquantifiable things. Such a theory is essentially formed out of a void argument.
Wake wrote:
Only a couple of schools offer "climate science courses" and most of those are either pure hogwash or so generalized that they are meaningless work-time.
All of them are. They are only there so the schools can make money and so the government running them can gain more priests for the Church of Global Warming, which in turn furthers the expansion of government.
Wake wrote:
Not only has NASA manufactured data but they have changed that data at least three times since the environmentalists have taken charge of the NASA climate programs.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Apparently NASA felt that manufacturing the data once wasn't good enough.
Wake wrote:
If we look at NASA's temperature curve we see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
Pay particular attention to the time from 1979 to the present.
If we look at the temperature curves from the NASA weather satellites in this time period kept by the man who was the head of the weather satellite program we see:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
This plainly shows the hoax perpetrated on the people of the entire world.
Not really. Statistical math does that. It is simply not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
We had the Maunder Minimum or "little ice age" 1650 to 1710 we then had another cold period though not as extreme for another 30 years. This caused almost an entire freezing over and glaciation in Greenland and very bad conditions in Iceland and Northern Europe. We also have proof that this was a world wide event. Even geological evidence from New Zealand.
Since that time the glaciers at lower latitudes such as Greenland have been melting and so sea levels have been slowly rising. The lower latitude glaciers are almost back to the altitudes they were at the beginning of the little ice age and have mostly stopped melting.
No one is monitoring the glaciers of the world either.
Wake wrote:
We have sea level measurements from the US Civil War onward.
Nope. It is not possible to measure the sea level without reference point. Land moves, you see. Surges in local sea levels also occur due to pressure and temperature in the local area.
Wake wrote:
They showed a steady rise of 1 mm a year.
Not possible to determine with that accuracy.
Wake wrote:
Suddenly NASA decided that we, contrary to the actual measurements, were having a sea level rise of 2 mm per year.
More manufactured data.
Wake wrote:
Why was this? They decided to claim without any real evidence that the Earth's mantle was shrinking from cooling at the rate of 1 mm per year.
I love this one from NASA. They show their bad math yet again! If, somehow you reduced the sphere of the Earth by 1mm, you will NOT get a 1mm rise in the oceans. There's this little number called pi involved, you see. (Only two weeks for International Pi Day!)
Wake wrote:
This of course would mean that the oceans had to suddenly have started rising at twice the measured rate in order to show the same change in measured levels.
Since it's not possible to measure sea level without a reference, such numbers are completely meaningless.
Wake wrote:
Well to begin with even 1mm is questionable.
To say the least. It's garbage.
Wake wrote:
If we had measure that amount of rise since the civil war that would be a 15 cm rise (6 inches) and none of the major ports in the world have detected any such rises.
Since ALL of the major ports in the world are situated on land that moves up, down, sideways, tilts, or fills with sediment, the couldn't tell if the sea level changed by a dozen FEET.
Wake wrote:
In fact the Marshal Islands that were predicted to disappear under the rising oceans have actually gained land area.
Corals are so nice. So are parrot fish.
Wake wrote:
As someone that is an electronics engineer that has spent most of his life in research and development I have worked in science almost my entire life.
I don't believe this any more than the last time you claimed it. Claimed credentials mean nothing on forums such as this.
Wake wrote:
One of the sciences I know is spectroscopy
Since you don't understand the formulas related to spectroscopy, I will call this a lie. Go study Planck's law and its derivative laws.
Wake wrote:
and I can tell you for absolute certain that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere if it is above about 200 ppm.
It has no affect at all on Earth's temperature, regardless of the global concentration (which is not possible to measure).
Wake wrote:
It is my opinion that you are probably a young person without any science training.
Science isn't 'training'. No one has to be trained to use or create a theory of science.
Wake wrote:
And that without any credentials
Science is not credentials either. No university, no government agency, no job experience is science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It requires no 'approval' by anyone. No one owns science.
A child could come up with a theory of science. A child can also use a theory of science. A child can do this without ever understanding what a theory is (an explanatory argument), or what makes a theory a scientific one.
Wake wrote:
you can neither research nor understand any real information pertinent to these questions.
NONE of these questions have anything to do with science.
You should learn the difference between science and mathematics.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 02-03-2018 04:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
Josip123 wrote:
Hello,
Here's an interesting article about the "naysayers" of climate change. It also includes a youtube video that discusses why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change.
Article : http://www.evolving-science.com/environment/new-research-combats-poor-reasoning-influences-climate-change-denial-00583
Josip,
My primary complaint would be that the peer review process is often bypassed.
Peer review is not part of science. It is part of publishing in magazines or journals. Theories can become scientific ones without the use of peer review. Several well known scientists have published without the use of magazines or journals at all.
If a scientist can come up with a theory, find the null hypothesis in it, test that, and the theory survives, the theory automatically becomes part of the body of science. All that remains is to tell somebody.
James___ wrote:
I think this is changing now that CO2 is no longer the primary reason for climate change. Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments. Buzzwords are nothing to worry about. CO2 cannot change the temperature of the Earth at all.
James___ wrote:
With the continued research in deep faults, hydrothermal vents and under water volcanism that a broader, more open perspective is being considered.
You mean other 'mechanisms' to support a buzzword are being considered.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-03-2018 04:52 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Josip123 wrote:
Hello,
Here's an interesting article about the "naysayers" of climate change. It also includes a youtube video that discusses why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change.
Article : http://www.evolving-science.com/environment/new-research-combats-poor-reasoning-influences-climate-change-denial-00583
Humans aren't "bad" about thinking about climate change. In fact when presented with the facts they are quite good at it. What are the facts presented by the wild-eyed leftist environmentalists that have seized control of the NASA projects on climate? That COMPUTER MODELS SHOW WARMING that not only is not proven by actual temperature measurements both by ground stations but by satellite measurements as well.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, not even by satellites.
Wake wrote:
Who are the people developing these "scientific theories" or as that asinine story puts it, "Recent reports suggest that the level of consensus among scientists working in relevant fields on the subject of climate patterns is 97%."
There is very little in the matter of "relevant fields". Virtually every scientific field has some connection to information on the climate of this planet be it physics, astrophysics, chemistry, geology or anything else. That number is so phony that any actual scientist saw through it immediately. Anyone that would quote such a number is not a scientist and knows nothing about science.
True. They also know nothing about statistical mathematics.
Wake wrote:
There are NO degrees issued in "climate science" and there never will be because of the breadth of the specialties involved.
No, because 'climate' is not a quantifiable term. Science has no theories about unquantifiable things. Such a theory is essentially formed out of a void argument.
Wake wrote:
Only a couple of schools offer "climate science courses" and most of those are either pure hogwash or so generalized that they are meaningless work-time.
All of them are. They are only there so the schools can make money and so the government running them can gain more priests for the Church of Global Warming, which in turn furthers the expansion of government.
Wake wrote:
Not only has NASA manufactured data but they have changed that data at least three times since the environmentalists have taken charge of the NASA climate programs.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Apparently NASA felt that manufacturing the data once wasn't good enough.
Wake wrote:
If we look at NASA's temperature curve we see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
Pay particular attention to the time from 1979 to the present.
If we look at the temperature curves from the NASA weather satellites in this time period kept by the man who was the head of the weather satellite program we see:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
This plainly shows the hoax perpetrated on the people of the entire world.
Not really. Statistical math does that. It is simply not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
We had the Maunder Minimum or "little ice age" 1650 to 1710 we then had another cold period though not as extreme for another 30 years. This caused almost an entire freezing over and glaciation in Greenland and very bad conditions in Iceland and Northern Europe. We also have proof that this was a world wide event. Even geological evidence from New Zealand.
Since that time the glaciers at lower latitudes such as Greenland have been melting and so sea levels have been slowly rising. The lower latitude glaciers are almost back to the altitudes they were at the beginning of the little ice age and have mostly stopped melting.
No one is monitoring the glaciers of the world either.
Wake wrote:
We have sea level measurements from the US Civil War onward.
Nope. It is not possible to measure the sea level without reference point. Land moves, you see. Surges in local sea levels also occur due to pressure and temperature in the local area.
Wake wrote:
They showed a steady rise of 1 mm a year.
Not possible to determine with that accuracy.
Wake wrote:
Suddenly NASA decided that we, contrary to the actual measurements, were having a sea level rise of 2 mm per year.
More manufactured data.
Wake wrote:
Why was this? They decided to claim without any real evidence that the Earth's mantle was shrinking from cooling at the rate of 1 mm per year.
I love this one from NASA. They show their bad math yet again! If, somehow you reduced the sphere of the Earth by 1mm, you will NOT get a 1mm rise in the oceans. There's this little number called pi involved, you see. (Only two weeks for International Pi Day!)
Wake wrote:
This of course would mean that the oceans had to suddenly have started rising at twice the measured rate in order to show the same change in measured levels.
Since it's not possible to measure sea level without a reference, such numbers are completely meaningless.
Wake wrote:
Well to begin with even 1mm is questionable.
To say the least. It's garbage.
Wake wrote:
If we had measure that amount of rise since the civil war that would be a 15 cm rise (6 inches) and none of the major ports in the world have detected any such rises.
Since ALL of the major ports in the world are situated on land that moves up, down, sideways, tilts, or fills with sediment, the couldn't tell if the sea level changed by a dozen FEET.
Wake wrote:
In fact the Marshal Islands that were predicted to disappear under the rising oceans have actually gained land area.
Corals are so nice. So are parrot fish.
Wake wrote:
As someone that is an electronics engineer that has spent most of his life in research and development I have worked in science almost my entire life.
I don't believe this any more than the last time you claimed it. Claimed credentials mean nothing on forums such as this.
Wake wrote:
One of the sciences I know is spectroscopy
Since you don't understand the formulas related to spectroscopy, I will call this a lie. Go study Planck's law and its derivative laws.
Wake wrote:
and I can tell you for absolute certain that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere if it is above about 200 ppm.
It has no affect at all on Earth's temperature, regardless of the global concentration (which is not possible to measure).
Wake wrote:
It is my opinion that you are probably a young person without any science training.
Science isn't 'training'. No one has to be trained to use or create a theory of science.
Wake wrote:
And that without any credentials
Science is not credentials either. No university, no government agency, no job experience is science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It requires no 'approval' by anyone. No one owns science.
A child could come up with a theory of science. A child can also use a theory of science. A child can do this without ever understanding what a theory is (an explanatory argument), or what makes a theory a scientific one.
Wake wrote:
you can neither research nor understand any real information pertinent to these questions.
NONE of these questions have anything to do with science.
You should learn the difference between science and mathematics.
Standard Native American commentary. |
| 02-03-2018 11:27 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Josip123 wrote:
Hello,
Here's an interesting article about the "naysayers" of climate change. It also includes a youtube video that discusses why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change.
Article : http://www.evolving-science.com/environment/new-research-combats-poor-reasoning-influences-climate-change-denial-00583
Perhaps you could explain here what poor thinking people such as Professor Curry have done so far? |
| 02-03-2018 11:48 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyztWNW2HsM
Interesting video by a Nobel winner with discussion of who there are problems with measuring temperature etc.
Edited on 02-03-2018 11:49 |
| 02-03-2018 17:40 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Josip123 wrote:
Hello,
Here's an interesting article about the "naysayers" of climate change. It also includes a youtube video that discusses why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change.
Article : http://www.evolving-science.com/environment/new-research-combats-poor-reasoning-influences-climate-change-denial-00583
Josip,
That was a poorly written article. In simple terms it is propaganda. She did not mention that it is not that the climate is changing that is being debated but why it's changing.
I pointed out in another thread that most people did not realize that until 2012 CO2 was considered the primary cause of climate change. This is because they say it traps heat in our atmosphere. At the same time proponents of CO2 based climate change also state that our atmosphere hasn't really warmed since 1998 despite record levels of CO2.
In 2013 after 2 reports came out the consensus changed to AGW. One report (IPCC) stated that there was a 15 year global warming pause going back to 1998 despite record levels of CO2. The other report (World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project) stated that ozone depletion had almost stopped in 1998 and that from 1998 to 2013 ozone depletion was minimal and that the ozone layer was ready to start recovering.
Furthermore the report concerning ozone recovery also stated
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014
World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 55
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
United Nations Environment Programme
World Meteorological Organization
European Commission wrote:
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
With me, I think once the heat from deep faults and hydrothermal vents reaches the surface, things will get warmer. It does seem to take about 10 years for the heat from the sea floor to reach the surface. With the thread I started about earthquakes around Greenland and atmospheric warming and cooling, that pattern does show itself. It's just takes looking. |
| 07-03-2018 19:57 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyztWNW2HsM
Interesting video by a Nobel winner with discussion of who there are problems with measuring temperature etc.
Que the 12th grade education person says, "he don't no nothin". |