Remember me
▼ Content

References needed, not rhetoric.



Page 1 of 212>
References needed, not rhetoric.24-03-2019 14:20
TarickTDSProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
What are the very best evidences of climate change being real?

I'm looking for proof, papers from credible sources or other factual references that show we are causing climate change by CO2 emissions.

I've a lot of friends and family who are sceptical and need to find sources to show them its actually real and happening.

P.S. Personally I'm convinced that regardless of what the science says, the way we operate in the modern world is clearly in-efficient and cause for change but I need more than that.

P.P.S I'm also very interested in how the lack of sustainability in the modern world effects humans negatively. I may be double dipping there but still love to see some papers or other credible sources.

Regards,

Garth

"Green Change Now"
24-03-2019 14:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
TarickTDS wrote:
What are the very best evidences of climate change being real?

I'm looking for proof, papers from credible sources or other factual references that show we are causing climate change by CO2 emissions.

I don't mean to dash any hopes but you aren't going to find any. Science has already addressed every Global Warming claim and it is simply not possible.

Global Warming is a religion, very similar to its main competitor, Christianity, but is more clearly understood as a mythology, e.g. Greek, Norse, etc.

If you read through just the first post of this thread, all will be clear:

http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/5793/reference-manaual-global-warming-mythology


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2019 16:11
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
TarickTDS wrote:
What are the very best evidences of climate change being real?

I'm looking for proof, papers from credible sources or other factual references that show we are causing climate change by CO2 emissions.

I've a lot of friends and family who are sceptical and need to find sources to show them its actually real and happening.

P.S. Personally I'm convinced that regardless of what the science says, the way we operate in the modern world is clearly in-efficient and cause for change but I need more than that.

P.P.S I'm also very interested in how the lack of sustainability in the modern world effects humans negatively. I may be double dipping there but still love to see some papers or other credible sources.

Regards,

Garth

"Green Change Now"



Garth, NotDaMann just showed that rhetoric is what the argument, ie., not a debate or discussion is about. Global warming isn't possible. His name references the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. He has no interest in the Boltzmann constant or the little known fact that there was a little ice age until about 1800. And before that the was the Medieval Warm period. He says that's simply wrong. Can anyone prove it? Not according to him and his friends. They say there's not enough thermometers to measure the temperature. That's what they offer as far as any discussion goes.
As for CO2 causing global warming, scientists haven't shown any specific work that shows it's effect in our atmosphere. To give you an idea, we're exchanging messages online. How many calculations per second does you processor do? If they get any of those wrong then we might not be able to post a message.
This would be because what we upload wouldn't be able to be read by the host.
Yet for people like NotDaMann and his friends, they ignore what science does allow for.
If you consider that most of global warming is the warming or our oceans, why can't scientists add CO2 to salt water, monitor it's CO2 levels and temperature?
That would support their opinion that CO2 in our oceans are causing them to warm https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/oceans-warming-faster-than-ever/. And if such an experiment showed that CO2 doesn't have the desired effect then they would need to consider what astrophysical and geological causes could effect the general overall climate that our planet has.
Why this might be a problem is because oil, natural gas and coal are all finite resources. The global demand for coal is expected to increase https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/december/global-coal-demand-set-to-remain-stable-through-2023-despite-headwinds.html.
With global energy reserves, if in the future countries like Russia and China control them then where does that leave the US? With me, I think blaming CO2 for warming is detracting away from more important issues. IMHO I'd say that scientists are trying to Reverse Engineer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reverse%20engineer CO2 as the basis of climate change.
With this, scroll down to How the Kinetic Molecular Theory Explains the Gas Laws http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch4/kinetic.php they would need to show how elevated levels of CO2 allows for it. That would be another basic experiment. Add CO2, add some heat, the same amount of heat to other containers with varying levels of CO2 and record the data.
Neither experiment has been shown to have taken place. Yet both would show whether a relationship between CO2 and heat exists as they claim. If they got it wrong, expect them to avoid experiments like the 2 that I mentioned. This would mean that science didn't lead the way but that opinion did.
Edited on 24-03-2019 16:12
24-03-2019 16:22
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(694)
Global warming is real, but it's just the natural recovery from the great ice age, still a lot of leftover ice to melt. The 'climate' always changes, no place on earth stats the exact same, year after year, always some variations. We weren't here on earth, long enough to know what is 'normal', or what to expect. The relationship between CO2 and warming is faith based, no way to validate it, besides waiting it out, or trying to remove CO2, and see if that had any effect. Unfortunately, we need CO2 in the atmosphere, for food production. Plants feed everything, in one way or another. More mouths to feed, mean we need plants to produce more food, which requires more CO2. Every living thing is made up of hydrocarbons, but plants are our only base source for that carbon, which comes from CO2 in the air. We currently only have about 0.04%, or 400 ppm in the atmosphere, but plants do incredibly well at 1200-2000 ppm. Basically, they are only getting enough to get by, but not the ideal.

There are many credible papers, both for and against, just no practical or repeatable way to test them. We don't have the means to accurately measure CO2, global temperature, or rising sea levels, least not to the degree of precision, that we could make any claim on a few degrees variance. The claimed temperature rise, carries a huge margin of error, bad math/science. The data used in the simulations, is very thin, just not enough, and not precise, or consistent, basically random numbers. Nor, is there any records far enough in the past, to compare the results to validate.

Basically, you put you faith in believing, or denying, but it's really unlikely there is any crisis, or anything we could actually do to change the course. The more responsible choice, would be to accept that the planet has always gone through changes, and will continue to do so. Instead of wasting time, and resources fighting a phantom foe, we should be preparing for the changes, and ready to adapt or migrate, which is what most other species do.

True, humans are very wasteful, and nasty polluters too. We should waste less, reuse as much of the resources as we can, and clean up some of the past mess we made. Oil is still our best source of energy, and we burn it very cleanly these days, for the most part. The CO2 produced, is great for the plants, that feed us all. The radical change from oil, to all the 'renewable' options, is wasteful, and efficient. Not everything can be converted to another energy source, and would need to be demolished. Oil can be moved very easy, to provide power where it's needed. Most all other sources don't transport well. Solar and wind, aren't very efficient or productive, need acres of farms, miles of wire. These all take a lot of resources, and power to produce. Nothing really 'Green' about it, except the money some people are stuffing in their pockets.

Climate Change works the same way as any religion, it's entirely faith based, only true, if you believe. They both use miracles and unexplained natural events, to support their faith. Both keep reaching for your wallet, every chance they get, promising to sell you salvation, or death and destruction.
24-03-2019 17:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote: Garth, NotDaMann just showed that rhetoric is what the argument, ie., not a debate or discussion is about.

Now now James__, you well know that a discussion of science precludes any discussion of any religious dogma, except to expose violations of physics and logical contradictions. Global Warming and Climate Change have no place in science discussions as you are well aware.


James___ wrote: His name references the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

James__, those who believe in Global Warming or Climate Change are either scientifically illiterate or are flat out science deniers.

For example, a scientifically literate person would not conflate the Stefan-Boltzmann law with the Boltzmann constant. One is a law and one is a constant.


James___ wrote: As for CO2 causing global warming, scientists haven't shown any specific work that shows it's effect in our atmosphere.

Biology has shown that CO2 is a life-essential compound.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law shows that CO2 has zero impact on the earth's average global temperature.


James___ wrote: Yet for people like NotDaMann and his friends, they ignore what science does allow for.

I merely state science and explain to anyone with questions. You're the one who protests science not aligning with your religious dogma. That's hardly my fault.

Also, you are mathematically incompetent. That is not my fault either. I offer to help you but thou doth protest even math.


James___ wrote: If you consider that most of global warming is the warming or our oceans,

Why would anyone even "consider" that without a formal, falsifiable definition of Global Warming?


James___ wrote: ...why can't scientists add CO2 to salt water, monitor it's CO2 levels and temperature?

Are you asking why you don't do it? If it's not important enough to you then why would you imagine that it's so amazingly important to others?


James___ wrote: That would support their opinion that CO2 in our oceans are causing them to warm

Besides Global Warming religious dogma, what falsifiable theories have been presented? One needs a falsifiable theory before one can devise any sort of experiments.

James___ wrote:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/oceans-warming-faster-than-ever

Of course, you cite National Geographic. Dismissed.


James___ wrote: Why this might be a problem is because oil, natural gas and coal are all finite resources. The global demand for coal is expected to increase

How are hydrocarbons not products of natural geological processes involving carbon in the earth's crust?


James___ wrote:With this, scroll down to How the Kinetic Molecular Theory Explains the Gas Laws http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch4/kinetic.php they would need to show how elevated levels of CO2 allows for it.

Let me get this straight. "They" would bear the burden of showing that physics still applies while CO2 levels increase?



James___ wrote: That would be another basic experiment. Add CO2, add some heat, the same amount of heat to other containers with varying levels of CO2 and record the data.

What do you mean by "heat"?

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "warmth," "cops," "energy," "infrared," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.


James___ wrote: Neither experiment has been shown to have taken place. Yet both would show whether a relationship between CO2 and heat exists as they claim.

Same question: What do you mean by "heat"?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2019 17:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
HarveyH55 wrote: Global warming is real,

Nope, not with out a formal falsifiable definition. Until then, all you have is religious dogma.

If you want to jump over to the science side of the fence, you have to do what is necessary to take the leap.

HarveyH55 wrote: The 'climate' always changes, ...

Climate: proper noun
The heroine of the Global Warming mythology; Climate is the goddess overseeing the central planning and administration of all weather, ecosystems, and local climates across the globe, as well as all interactions thereof. Climate is responsible for the care and well-being of all life on earth. In other faith's She is called Mother Nature.

Note: Climate, by her nature, never changes but she is believed to be constantly changing, thus forming the grand mystery of the Global Warming faith. This is a core tenet of Settled Science.


HarveyH55 wrote: Climate Change works the same way as any religion, it's entirely faith based, only true, if you believe. They both use miracles and unexplained natural events, to support their faith. Both keep reaching for your wallet, every chance they get, promising to sell you salvation, or death and destruction.


Climate Science: proper noun
The canonical name of the religious dogma of the Global Warming mythology.

The Science: proper noun
The colloquial name of the religious dogma of the Global Warming mythology.

Climate Scientist: noun
Any Global Warming believer who has entered the clergy by having professed his/her faith in an officially recognized peer reviewed document. Upon being anointed, Climate scientists get to participate in democratic votes on Climate Science and become part of the The Science consensus.

Scientific Community: proper noun
Within the Global Warming Congregation, the brotherhood of Climate Scientists. This brotherhood of Global Warming clergy currently maintains a 97% belief in Global Warming. There is uncertainty as to how 3% of them do not.

(Scientific) Consensus: noun
The majority opinion, on any topic whatsoever, of the brotherhood of Climate Scientists (i.e. Scientific Community).

Settled Science: noun
Any element of Climate Science that runs counter to physics or is an apparent logical fallacy, e.g. "Climate Change."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2019 20:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
TarickTDS wrote:
What are the very best evidences of climate change being real?

Define 'climate change'. Define 'real'.
TarickTDS wrote:
I'm looking for proof, papers from credible sources or other factual references that show we are causing climate change by CO2 emissions.

There is no proof, since 'climate change' remains undefined. CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth.
TarickTDS wrote:
I've a lot of friends and family who are sceptical and need to find sources to show them its actually real and happening.

Are you actually having trouble finding scripture from the Church of Global Warming?
TarickTDS wrote:
P.S. Personally I'm convinced that regardless of what the science says, the way we operate in the modern world is clearly in-efficient and cause for change but I need more than that.

Define 'efficient'. Void argument.
TarickTDS wrote:
P.P.S I'm also very interested in how the lack of sustainability in the modern world effects humans negatively. I may be double dipping there but still love to see some papers or other credible sources.

Define 'sustainability'. Void argument.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2019 22:12
TarickTDSProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Thanks, ill need some time to read over. Any pro man made climate change here?
24-03-2019 22:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
TarickTDS wrote:
Thanks, ill need some time to read over. Any pro man made climate change here?

Question: Are you a believer?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2019 22:33
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
TarickTDS wrote:
Thanks, ill need some time to read over. Any pro man made climate change here?



You're welcome. With science (my perspective), when we understand natural climate variation then we'll have a better idea of how mankind is influencing it.
From an environmental perspective, we're trashing the planet.

I almost made a serious mistake. If you live in Australia then the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica is the major concern. CCl4 is one of the prominent GHG's as it destroys ozone.
That would be how the Southern Hemisphere' s climate is being influenced by mankind.
The Little Ice Age possibly didn't have much influence in the Southern Hemisphere. Even an ice age might make a place like Australia warmer. Equatorial waters could transport more heat towards Antarctica.
What you might check out are temperatures around Australia and the size of the hole in the ozone layer. And was there an El Nino that year? This might be more relevant for you.

https://images.app.goo.gl/v7aY5JoS9MjYQMHF8
Edited on 24-03-2019 23:00
24-03-2019 22:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote: With science (my perspective), when we understand natural climate variation then we'll have a better idea of how mankind is influencing it.

To be clear to those outside your religious faith, you should have written:

"With Climate Science (my perspective), when we understand natural Climate variation then we'll have a better idea of how mankind is influencing it."

You are a scientifically illiterate believer of the Global Warming faith. You adhere to a religious dogma that requires you to refer to it as "science."

Natural Variation: noun
The extent of the Greenhouse Effect miracle that is caused by Climate and is considered "a force of good."

Climate Sensitivity or Climate Variation: noun
The extent of the Greenhouse Effect miracle that is caused by Global Warming and is imposed on Climate. This is considered "a force of evil."

James___ wrote: From an environmental perspective, we're trashing the planet.

We might be trashing our environment but the planet is just fine.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2019 23:05
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: With science (my perspective), when we understand natural climate variation then we'll have a better idea of how mankind is influencing it.

To be clear to those outside your religious faith, you should have written:

"With Climate Science (my perspective), when we understand natural Climate variation then we'll have a better idea of how mankind is influencing it."

You are a scientifically illiterate believer of the Global Warming faith. You adhere to a religious dogma that requires you to refer to it as "science."

Natural Variation: noun
The extent of the Greenhouse Effect miracle that is caused by Climate and is considered "a force of good."

Climate Sensitivity or Climate Variation: noun
The extent of the Greenhouse Effect miracle that is caused by Global Warming and is imposed on Climate. This is considered "a force of evil."

James___ wrote: From an environmental perspective, we're trashing the planet.

We might be trashing our environment but the planet is just fine.


This is old. You, itn and company want us to live in the "now" without any concern for what was or is to come. It's a simple life where only your desires and needs matter.
If you're hungry, you eat. If you're thirsty, you drink. Booorrrriiiiinnnnnnggggggg, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
24-03-2019 23:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote:You, itn and company want us to live in the "now" without any concern for what was or is to come.

I am not a member of your religion's congregation so you can reasonably expect that I do not subscribe to your religion's prophesy of doom.

Science will be a more accurate prediction of what is to come than your religious gibber-babble.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-03-2019 03:35
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(694)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: Global warming is real,

Nope, not with out a formal falsifiable definition. Until then, all you have is religious dogma.

If you want to jump over to the science side of the fence, you have to do what is necessary to take the leap.



Little out of context...

I believe! The planet has been warming since the great ice ages, still plenty of leftover ice, so still some recovery-warming left to go. I also tend to look at what plants do best with, more CO2, warmer climate. We are still have a way to go, before the food source is at it's peak productivity. It's coded in the DNA, and would be passed on, if it wasn't good for the species, or normal. Not everything can be defined by an equation.
25-03-2019 03:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I believe! The planet has been warming since the great ice ages, still plenty of leftover ice, so still some recovery-warming left to go.

May I ask why you believe this? Why do you believe there were planet-wide ice ages? I know that's the official speculation we are taught as kids, but do you have any rational basis for that belief or is it sufficient for you that trusted authority figures told you to believe it?

HarveyH55 wrote: I also tend to look at what plants do best with, more CO2, warmer climate.

What makes you think the planet's average global temperature is changing? What makes you think Greenhouse Effect is real?

HarveyH55 wrote: Not everything can be defined by an equation.

Most science can.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-03-2019 10:28
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(694)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I believe! The planet has been warming since the great ice ages, still plenty of leftover ice, so still some recovery-warming left to go.

May I ask why you believe this? Why do you believe there were planet-wide ice ages? I know that's the official speculation we are taught as kids, but do you have any rational basis for that belief or is it sufficient for you that trusted authority figures told you to believe it?

HarveyH55 wrote: I also tend to look at what plants do best with, more CO2, warmer climate.

What makes you think the planet's average global temperature is changing? What makes you think Greenhouse Effect is real?

HarveyH55 wrote: Not everything can be defined by an equation.

Most science can.


There is no average global temperature, no way to measure it anyway. There is no greenhouse effect, planet isn't in a closed container, atmosphere can expand and contract.

Fossil remains of life, pre-ice age seem to be plentiful, some of the critters kind of large, which would require a lot of food, often. Plants do best in a warmer climate, which provide the food. Obviously, the entire planet wasn't frozen solid, but a good portion, the rest was a little on the chilly side. Frozen remains of critters from the ice age, mammoths for one, still get found, as some of that northern ice melts.

Of course, most is just guess, nobody was there to record the story. We don't really know about the distant past, a few relics and artifacts.
25-03-2019 12:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
TarickTDS wrote:
What are the very best evidences of climate change being real?

I'm looking for proof, papers from credible sources or other factual references that show we are causing climate change by CO2 emissions.

I've a lot of friends and family who are sceptical and need to find sources to show them its actually real and happening.

P.S. Personally I'm convinced that regardless of what the science says, the way we operate in the modern world is clearly in-efficient and cause for change but I need more than that.

P.P.S I'm also very interested in how the lack of sustainability in the modern world effects humans negatively. I may be double dipping there but still love to see some papers or other credible sources.

Regards,

Garth

"Green Change Now"


1, We have at least 100 years of oil reserves know of today. This is a number bigger than it has ever been. That has happened because of the recent price spike that has gone away and lots of prospecting happened. We will stop using il long before we use all of it.

2, If we had a land fill for the world we would need 17 square miles of land fill for the whole of this century. There is a lot of useless land out there. One day the land fills of today will be used as a resource, they will be recycled just like the spoil heaps of Roman lead mines.

3, The climate changes. It always has. It has warmed up recently, although that appears that it has been exceptionally stable for the last couple of decades. Will it warm up in the next decade? I don't know.
25-03-2019 14:59
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
TarickTDS wrote:
What are the very best evidences of climate change being real?

I'm looking for proof, papers from credible sources or other factual references that show we are causing climate change by CO2 emissions.

I've a lot of friends and family who are sceptical and need to find sources to show them its actually real and happening.

P.S. Personally I'm convinced that regardless of what the science says, the way we operate in the modern world is clearly in-efficient and cause for change but I need more than that.

P.P.S I'm also very interested in how the lack of sustainability in the modern world effects humans negatively. I may be double dipping there but still love to see some papers or other credible sources.

Regards,

Garth

"Green Change Now"


1, We have at least 100 years of oil reserves know of today. This is a number bigger than it has ever been. That has happened because of the recent price spike that has gone away and lots of prospecting happened. We will stop using il long before we use all of it.

2, If we had a land fill for the world we would need 17 square miles of land fill for the whole of this century. There is a lot of useless land out there. One day the land fills of today will be used as a resource, they will be recycled just like the spoil heaps of Roman lead mines.

3, The climate changes. It always has. It has warmed up recently, although that appears that it has been exceptionally stable for the last couple of decades. Will it warm up in the next decade? I don't know.


Easier said than done. People been using stone, coal, wood, wind power, iron, copper for many thousands of years and these are still being used even though there are plastics and carbon fiber today. I doubt people will stop using oil any time soon.
25-03-2019 19:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
TarickTDS wrote:
Thanks, ill need some time to read over. Any pro man made climate change here?



You're welcome. With science (my perspective), when we understand natural climate variation then we'll have a better idea of how mankind is influencing it.

Your perspective of science is The Science, as defined by the Church of Global Warming. It has nothing to do with any science of course.
James___ wrote:
From an environmental perspective, we're trashing the planet.

Define 'trashing the planet'.
James___ wrote:
I almost made a serious mistake.

You've made several just in this post so far! Now you will continue to make more of them.
James___ wrote:
If you live in Australia then the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica is the major concern. CCl4 is one of the prominent GHG's as it destroys ozone.

Where's all that CCl4 coming from? Did you know that ozone destroys ozone? Where does the hole go in summer? On vacation?
James___ wrote:
That would be how the Southern Hemisphere' s climate is being influenced by mankind.

So now the ozone 'hole' is climate now? What weather would you call it?
James___ wrote:
The Little Ice Age possibly didn't have much influence in the Southern Hemisphere.

Unknown.
James___ wrote:
Even an ice age might make a place like Australia warmer.

Why?
James___ wrote:
Equatorial waters could transport more heat towards Antarctica.

You can't transport heat. You are also speculating.
James___ wrote:
What you might check out are temperatures around Australia and the size of the hole in the ozone layer.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Australia.


The Parrot Killer
25-03-2019 19:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: With science (my perspective), when we understand natural climate variation then we'll have a better idea of how mankind is influencing it.

To be clear to those outside your religious faith, you should have written:

"With Climate Science (my perspective), when we understand natural Climate variation then we'll have a better idea of how mankind is influencing it."

You are a scientifically illiterate believer of the Global Warming faith. You adhere to a religious dogma that requires you to refer to it as "science."

Natural Variation: noun
The extent of the Greenhouse Effect miracle that is caused by Climate and is considered "a force of good."

Climate Sensitivity or Climate Variation: noun
The extent of the Greenhouse Effect miracle that is caused by Global Warming and is imposed on Climate. This is considered "a force of evil."

James___ wrote: From an environmental perspective, we're trashing the planet.

We might be trashing our environment but the planet is just fine.


This is old. You, itn and company want us to live in the "now" without any concern for what was or is to come.

WRONG. We both plan for the future. We also both realize that your religious fears are not part of it.
James___ wrote:
It's a simple life where only your desires and needs matter.
If you're hungry, you eat. If you're thirsty, you drink. Booorrrriiiiinnnnnnggggggg, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Going to go on a religious fast? How long do you suppose you can survive without foot and water?


The Parrot Killer
25-03-2019 19:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I believe! The planet has been warming since the great ice ages, still plenty of leftover ice, so still some recovery-warming left to go.

May I ask why you believe this? Why do you believe there were planet-wide ice ages? I know that's the official speculation we are taught as kids, but do you have any rational basis for that belief or is it sufficient for you that trusted authority figures told you to believe it?

HarveyH55 wrote: I also tend to look at what plants do best with, more CO2, warmer climate.

What makes you think the planet's average global temperature is changing? What makes you think Greenhouse Effect is real?

HarveyH55 wrote: Not everything can be defined by an equation.

Most science can.


ALL science capable of prediction can. It is mathematics or logic that gives a theory of science the power of prediction (usually mathematics).


The Parrot Killer
25-03-2019 19:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
TarickTDS wrote:
What are the very best evidences of climate change being real?

I'm looking for proof, papers from credible sources or other factual references that show we are causing climate change by CO2 emissions.

I've a lot of friends and family who are sceptical and need to find sources to show them its actually real and happening.

P.S. Personally I'm convinced that regardless of what the science says, the way we operate in the modern world is clearly in-efficient and cause for change but I need more than that.

P.P.S I'm also very interested in how the lack of sustainability in the modern world effects humans negatively. I may be double dipping there but still love to see some papers or other credible sources.

Regards,

Garth

"Green Change Now"


1, We have at least 100 years of oil reserves know of today. This is a number bigger than it has ever been. That has happened because of the recent price spike that has gone away and lots of prospecting happened. We will stop using il long before we use all of it.

2, If we had a land fill for the world we would need 17 square miles of land fill for the whole of this century. There is a lot of useless land out there. One day the land fills of today will be used as a resource, they will be recycled just like the spoil heaps of Roman lead mines.

3, The climate changes. It always has. It has warmed up recently, although that appears that it has been exceptionally stable for the last couple of decades. Will it warm up in the next decade? I don't know.


Easier said than done. People been using stone, coal, wood, wind power, iron, copper for many thousands of years and these are still being used even though there are plastics and carbon fiber today. I doubt people will stop using oil any time soon.


Why stop at using oil? It's cheap.


The Parrot Killer
25-03-2019 21:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Into the Night wrote:ALL science capable of prediction can. It is mathematics or logic that gives a theory of science the power of prediction (usually mathematics).

Actually, all science must be expressed formally, but not necessarily as an equation.

For example, a good deal of chemistry is expressed with just symbols:






Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-03-2019 21:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Into the Night wrote:ALL science capable of prediction can. It is mathematics or logic that gives a theory of science the power of prediction (usually mathematics).

Actually, all science must be expressed formally, but not necessarily as an equation.

For example, a good deal of chemistry is expressed with just symbols:






Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-03-2019 21:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:ALL science capable of prediction can. It is mathematics or logic that gives a theory of science the power of prediction (usually mathematics).

Actually, all science must be expressed formally, but not necessarily as an equation.

For example, a good deal of chemistry is expressed with just symbols:





These are, however, just a notation scheme. Really no different from any other notation scheme. While they describe chemical compounds and elements, they are just notations describing each of these. This notation is based on theories of science, but are not in and of themselves theories of science.

Chess notation, for example, does not describe chess itself.

The science behind this notation are theories of science. Like any other theory of science, they explain, but in and of themselves they cannot predict. Science must turn to a closed functional system like mathematics or logic to gain the power of prediction.

Thus, ALL science capable of prediction is expressed as an equation, either a mathematics one (usually), or a logical one.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-03-2019 21:39
25-03-2019 22:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Into the Night wrote:
Thus, ALL science capable of prediction is expressed as an equation, either a mathematics one (usually), or a logical one.

I disagree. The periodic table is a falsifiable model that predicts nature. The typical symbology depicting chemical reactions stem from the periodic table.

Without doing any sort of calculations, could one reason that Hydrogen, is a reactive element which, if two were fused together would form a stable noble gas, just by looking at the table?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-03-2019 22:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Thus, ALL science capable of prediction is expressed as an equation, either a mathematics one (usually), or a logical one.

I disagree. The periodic table is a falsifiable model that predicts nature. The typical symbology depicting chemical reactions stem from the periodic table.

The Periodic table itself stems from theories of science surrounding the structure of the atom (and it's current model). It is a notation scheme stemming from those theories.

Let's just take a simple reaction:

2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O

While the H is a notation used to describe hydrogen, and O is a notation used to describe oxygen, and the table handily includes values for molar weights, etc., the equation is really just mathematical in nature.

The arrangement of the table does make it easy to predict various compounds that will form, but remember the table itself is just a graphic representation of logical sets and subsets. These are equations in logic. The actual reaction would be again a mathematical equation, just like it was for the formation of water.


IBdaMann wrote:
Without doing any sort of calculations, could one reason that Hydrogen, is a reactive element which, if two were fused together would form a stable noble gas, just by looking at the table?


But you ARE doing a calculation. (You just did it in your head, since it's an easy one). 1+1=2. You are counting protons. All the Table really does is give a name for a certain number of protons in an atom. We call an element with one proton 'hydrogen'. We call an element with two protons 'helium' (which happens to be a noble gas).

The electrons, of course, will go along with it, once the fusion has completed, leaving the noble gas electrically neutral. Again, 1+1=2. The result is stable.

This is no different than if I told you out of my head that 1 volt through a 1k resistor will allow 1mA of current and use 1mW of power.. It's still Ohm's law. But it's easy to just do it in your head.


The Parrot Killer
26-03-2019 05:09
TarickTDSProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
How do you guys respond to this video?

https://youtu.be/LnnDOMyZjbE
26-03-2019 05:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Into the Night wrote:Thus, ALL science capable of prediction is expressed as an equation, either a mathematics one (usually), or a logical one.

You get major bonus points for adding "or a logical one" but unfortunately therein lies the error. It's not a logical "equation" ... it's a logical implication and that is completely different.

Science evolved out of philosophy and logic. Science is the area of philosophy that attempts to predict nature by establishing what causes will have what effects.

Science: Cause -> Effect

This is not an equation. This is an implication, i.e. specific Cause implies specific Effect. So the short answer up front is that science is not expressed in equations so much as it is expressed in logical implications, i.e. logical if -> then statements.

Regarding logical implications, your excellent observation makes a great segue:

Into the Night wrote:
Let's just take a simple reaction:

2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O


Absolutely, and as you well know, chemistry is replete with many more examples because this is how we express chemistry. We don't write 2H2 + O2 = 2H20 because they are obviously not equivalent. One causes the other so we have to write 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O. And because of the 2nd LoT, we cannot write 2H2O -> O2 + 2H2 ... we have to write 2H2O + energy -> O2 + 2H2

Now let's talk about equations. They stem from the logical tautology "==" (meaning both sides necessarily have the same truth values).

Example: temperature increases == radiance increases

The relationship E = mc^2 discussed logically would be expressed E == mc^2 and not expressed E -> mc^2 or mc^2 -> E ... as one express 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O

The periodic table, as a falsifiable model, enables many falsifiable hypotheses to be generated in the form of X + Y -> Z but I can't think of (m)any hypothetical relationships of the form X + Y = Z that can be derived from the periodic table. Can you?

Now I am going to wander into my opinion for a moment.
I claim that anything with dependent and independent variables should be written as an implication (cause/effect), e.g.

Stefan-Boltzmann: Emissivity*Boltzmann*Temperature^4 -> amount of radiance
Newton's Gravity: g[m1*m2]/dist^2 -> amount of accelerating force

... but that's just me.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-03-2019 17:00
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
TarickTDS wrote:
How do you guys respond to this video?

https://youtu.be/LnnDOMyZjbE


If you highlight the link then below the message area are different tabs, click on url and then it becomes a clickable link.

Myself, I absolutely loved the video. It was like "listening" to ITN and IBDaMann.
They both have a desire to define what is the right way to think. They both use their "logic" to validate their Null Hypothesis.
In this instance I think that the video as well as ITN and IBDaMann are wrong.
Yet a debate is not won by being correct or right. It is won by creating a more "peer-susavive" (persuasive) argument for your position than your opponent does for their position.
That any discussion about our climate in it's various forms has become a debate shows that the "nature" of the debate is not well founded.


https://youtu.be/LnnDOMyZjbE
Edited on 26-03-2019 17:31
26-03-2019 17:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Thus, ALL science capable of prediction is expressed as an equation, either a mathematics one (usually), or a logical one.

You get major bonus points for adding "or a logical one" but unfortunately therein lies the error. It's not a logical "equation" ... it's a logical implication and that is completely different.

Science evolved out of philosophy and logic. Science is the area of philosophy that attempts to predict nature by establishing what causes will have what effects.

Science: Cause -> Effect

This is not an equation. This is an implication, i.e. specific Cause implies specific Effect. So the short answer up front is that science is not expressed in equations so much as it is expressed in logical implications, i.e. logical if -> then statements.

Regarding logical implications, your excellent observation makes a great segue:

Into the Night wrote:
Let's just take a simple reaction:

2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O


Absolutely, and as you well know, chemistry is replete with many more examples because this is how we express chemistry. We don't write 2H2 + O2 = 2H20 because they are obviously not equivalent. One causes the other so we have to write 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O. And because of the 2nd LoT, we cannot write 2H2O -> O2 + 2H2 ... we have to write 2H2O + energy -> O2 + 2H2

Now let's talk about equations. They stem from the logical tautology "==" (meaning both sides necessarily have the same truth values).

Example: temperature increases == radiance increases

The relationship E = mc^2 discussed logically would be expressed E == mc^2 and not expressed E -> mc^2 or mc^2 -> E ... as one express 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O

The periodic table, as a falsifiable model, enables many falsifiable hypotheses to be generated in the form of X + Y -> Z but I can't think of (m)any hypothetical relationships of the form X + Y = Z that can be derived from the periodic table. Can you?

Now I am going to wander into my opinion for a moment.
I claim that anything with dependent and independent variables should be written as an implication (cause/effect), e.g.

Stefan-Boltzmann: Emissivity*Boltzmann*Temperature^4 -> amount of radiance
Newton's Gravity: g[m1*m2]/dist^2 -> amount of accelerating force

... but that's just me.


Concerning the periodic table, and describing fusion and fission, yes.
p1+p2=p
Protons from element one plus protons from element two plus = protons in total. During fusion p1+p2->p. During fission p->p1+p2. It is an equation. If we know how many protons we start with before fission, and we know the number of protons in one of the products, we can determine the protons in the other product(s). All the periodic table does is give p1, p2, and p names (and certain characteristics about the behavior of them chemically).

Concerning your use of dependent and independent variables:

Stefan-Boltzmann is indeed usually written:
radiance = emissivity * Boltzmann * temperature ^4
The radiance is the radiance due to temperature.

The reverse is also true:
temperature ^ 4 = (emissivity * Boltzmann) / radiance
Again, the radiance is that radiance due to temperature (not reflected light).

The emissivity constant is the measured constant that is unknown for Earth in both cases.

We don't know the blackbody radiance from Earth due to temperature. Emissivity is unknown.
We don't know the temperature of Earth due to blackbody radiance. Emissivity is unknown.

Newtons Law of Gravitation:
Yes, we CAN determine the mass of g1 IF we know the distance between two masses and the mass of g2 using similar algebra.

The only thing that changes are WHICH variables are dependent and independent.

Independent variables and dependent variables are not hard assignments that circumvent the use of algebra.

In ALL of these equations, '=' is appropriate.

Also, it IS cause -> effect in all cases as well.

Chemical reactions ARE equivalent, once you take energy into account. The water reaction above does release energy. To reverse it, you have to put the energy back into it.

Energy is usually left out due to convenience and chemists are usually interested in one direction of the reaction. But it CAN be reversed. It's called the electrolysis of water.


The Parrot Killer
26-03-2019 18:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
TarickTDS wrote:
How do you guys respond to this video?

https://youtu.be/LnnDOMyZjbE


If you highlight the link then below the message area are different tabs, click on url and then it becomes a clickable link.

Myself, I absolutely loved the video. It was like "listening" to ITN and IBDaMann.
They both have a desire to define what is the right way to think. They both use their "logic" to validate their Null Hypothesis.
In this instance I think that the video as well as ITN and IBDaMann are wrong.
Yet a debate is not won by being correct or right. It is won by creating a more "peer-susavive" (persuasive) argument for your position than your opponent does for their position.
That any discussion about our climate in it's various forms has become a debate shows that the "nature" of the debate is not well founded.


https://youtu.be/LnnDOMyZjbE


The problem with this video is the same one that is made by many believers of the Church of Global Warming: bad math. It is about the '97%' figure again.

This basic problem stems from the use of three fallacies: the argument of ignorance fallacy, and the attempted force of a negative proof fallacy, and a moving the goalposts fallacy. These are the fallacies that Cook made, and that others make when attempting to repeat Cook's study. The method itself is flawed due to the bad math and due to the same fallacies.

A fallacy is an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math.

The study examined papers by scientists for the phrase 'global warming' or 'climate change' (never mind what they actually mean, if anything). This right here commits an argument of ignorance. Papers that DON'T mention either phrase are automatically rejected. The opinions of scientists that wrote them is unknown (not rejected as the video claims). Only the opinions of scientists using these phrases is known (ignoring the missing raw data, which is required in any statistical summary).

The goalposts are then moved in the conclusion to refer to ALL scientists, not just those that used either phrase.

The number is now 'accepted' as True. Any challenge to this number must be done by the same type of study (which itself is flawed), rather than any other type of study. This is the attempted force of a negative proof. The actual number is unknown. It was never studied.

Fortunately, there is a way out that is simple in science: consensus is simply not used. No amount of consensus, supporting evidence, etc. will ever prove, bless, sanctify, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory (including any theory of science).

In effect, this is an attempted proof by consensus, which is not valid. Consensus is not a proof. Attempting to use consensus as a proof only opens the door to any religion being named as 'science'.

A consensus of Christians believe that Jesus Christ exists, and the He is who He says He is. This is EXACTLY the same sort of consensus claimed by Cook's (and other that copied it) study. You simply look at papers written by religious men instead of papers written by 'climatologists' (religious men).


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2019 01:35
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
TarickTDS wrote:
How do you guys respond to this video?

https://youtu.be/LnnDOMyZjbE


If you highlight the link then below the message area are different tabs, click on url and then it becomes a clickable link.

Myself, I absolutely loved the video. It was like "listening" to ITN and IBDaMann.
They both have a desire to define what is the right way to think. They both use their "logic" to validate their Null Hypothesis.
In this instance I think that the video as well as ITN and IBDaMann are wrong.
Yet a debate is not won by being correct or right. It is won by creating a more "peer-susavive" (persuasive) argument for your position than your opponent does for their position.
That any discussion about our climate in it's various forms has become a debate shows that the "nature" of the debate is not well founded.


https://youtu.be/LnnDOMyZjbE


The problem with this video is the same one that is made by many believers of the Church of Global Warming: bad math. It is about the '97%' figure again.

This basic problem stems from the use of three fallacies: the argument of ignorance fallacy, and the attempted force of a negative proof fallacy, and a moving the goalposts fallacy. These are the fallacies that Cook made, and that others make when attempting to repeat Cook's study. The method itself is flawed due to the bad math and due to the same fallacies.

A fallacy is an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math.

The study examined papers by scientists for the phrase 'global warming' or 'climate change' (never mind what they actually mean, if anything). This right here commits an argument of ignorance. Papers that DON'T mention either phrase are automatically rejected. The opinions of scientists that wrote them is unknown (not rejected as the video claims). Only the opinions of scientists using these phrases is known (ignoring the missing raw data, which is required in any statistical summary).

The goalposts are then moved in the conclusion to refer to ALL scientists, not just those that used either phrase.

The number is now 'accepted' as True. Any challenge to this number must be done by the same type of study (which itself is flawed), rather than any other type of study. This is the attempted force of a negative proof. The actual number is unknown. It was never studied.

Fortunately, there is a way out that is simple in science: consensus is simply not used. No amount of consensus, supporting evidence, etc. will ever prove, bless, sanctify, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory (including any theory of science).

In effect, this is an attempted proof by consensus, which is not valid. Consensus is not a proof. Attempting to use consensus as a proof only opens the door to any religion being named as 'science'.

A consensus of Christians believe that Jesus Christ exists, and the He is who He says He is. This is EXACTLY the same sort of consensus claimed by Cook's (and other that copied it) study. You simply look at papers written by religious men instead of papers written by 'climatologists' (religious men).



You make the same claim as the person in the video. You shame those who disagree with you as being ignorant. You are just as religious in your beliefs. You "" PARROT" them.
27-03-2019 22:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote: This is old. You, itn and company want us to live in the "now" without any concern for what was or is to come. It's a simple life where only your desires and needs matter.

James__, this is a religious cop out. I can't tell you how many times Christians have said this to me because I am an atheist.

Religions usually have some part of the dogma that bodes ill if the observances of the religion are not forthwith revered and adhered. Since I don't adhere to any theology, I can understand your sense of rejection at my "not revering and adhering" to yours.

I am an atheist environmentalist. I want an excellent environment, and that includes one with plenty of CO2. I want steak and milk; it's more than worth whatever methane that comes with it. Oh, and I love water vapor too.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-03-2019 23:30
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: This is old. You, itn and company want us to live in the "now" without any concern for what was or is to come. It's a simple life where only your desires and needs matter.

James__, this is a religious cop out. I can't tell you how many times Christians have said this to me because I am an atheist.

Religions usually have some part of the dogma that bodes ill if the observances of the religion are not forthwith revered and adhered. Since I don't adhere to any theology, I can understand your sense of rejection at my "not revering and adhering" to yours.

I am an atheist environmentalist. I want an excellent environment, and that includes one with plenty of CO2. I want steak and milk; it's more than worth whatever methane that comes with it. Oh, and I love water vapor too.



Your comments can equally be applied to you and your friends. You've shown where no debate is possible because people must accept you and your friends beliefs.
I am mindful that you didn't know the difference between center of gravity and the centre of mass. Yet I am to accept your beliefs or I will suffer the consequences.
Another way of looking at things is that it seems that you and ITN seems to think that it's rutting season. It's not.
The definition of dogma;
dog·ma
/ˈdôɡmə/
noun
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

the definition of religious;
religious adjective
re·​li·​gious | \ ri-ˈli-jəs
\
Definition of religious

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity a religious person religious attitudes
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances joined a religious order
3a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b : fervent, zealous


Are you and ITN authorities supporting a set of principles that you fervently believe in? You are. You both propose your own religious dogma.
Edited on 27-03-2019 23:45
28-03-2019 00:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote: Your comments can equally be applied to you and your friends.

No, it does not ... but I appreciate the implication that I have friends.


James___ wrote: You've shown where no debate is possible because people must accept you and your friends beliefs.

Nope. You cannot offer anything in the way of debate because you cannot explain how science is false.

You problem is that your religion is as hard-line as it is contradictory. It teaches of wondrous miracles of "forcings,""feedbacks" and "Greenhouse Effect" ... all of which are violations of physics ... but then demands that they be called "science." This appeals to the scientifically illiterate because they're too naive to recognize the contradiction.

The bad news for believer's is that the aforementioned contradiction immediately renders your faith FALSE the moment someone who is scientifically literate joins the discussion. People like you are left feeling like there's no room for debate because there isn't any, unless you can prove science false.

James___ wrote: I am mindful that you didn't know the difference between center of gravity and the centre of mass.

Since when? Quote me the text where I confused the two.

In a rigid aircraft, CoM is the same as CoG because gravity is evenly distributed, and you can thank me for teaching you this.




James___ wrote: The definition of dogma;
dog·ma
/ˈdôɡmə/
noun
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

the definition of religious;
religious adjective
re·​li·​gious | \ ri-ˈli-jəs
\
Definition of religious

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity a religious person religious attitudes
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances joined a religious order
3a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b : fervent, zealous


So you clearly understand the nature of the religious dogma of Global Warming.

James___ wrote: Are you and ITN authorities supporting a set of principles that you fervently believe in?

Nope. The science laws we accept are both falsifiable and not yet shown to be false. No opinions are involved. No consensus is involved. No beliefs are involved.

Your religion, on the other hand, is completely unfalsifiable. All you have are beliefs, assumptions, opinions and consensus.

I truly hope that helps.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-03-2019 00:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
TarickTDS wrote:
How do you guys respond to this video?

https://youtu.be/LnnDOMyZjbE


If you highlight the link then below the message area are different tabs, click on url and then it becomes a clickable link.

Myself, I absolutely loved the video. It was like "listening" to ITN and IBDaMann.
They both have a desire to define what is the right way to think. They both use their "logic" to validate their Null Hypothesis.
In this instance I think that the video as well as ITN and IBDaMann are wrong.
Yet a debate is not won by being correct or right. It is won by creating a more "peer-susavive" (persuasive) argument for your position than your opponent does for their position.
That any discussion about our climate in it's various forms has become a debate shows that the "nature" of the debate is not well founded.


https://youtu.be/LnnDOMyZjbE


The problem with this video is the same one that is made by many believers of the Church of Global Warming: bad math. It is about the '97%' figure again.

This basic problem stems from the use of three fallacies: the argument of ignorance fallacy, and the attempted force of a negative proof fallacy, and a moving the goalposts fallacy. These are the fallacies that Cook made, and that others make when attempting to repeat Cook's study. The method itself is flawed due to the bad math and due to the same fallacies.

A fallacy is an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math.

The study examined papers by scientists for the phrase 'global warming' or 'climate change' (never mind what they actually mean, if anything). This right here commits an argument of ignorance. Papers that DON'T mention either phrase are automatically rejected. The opinions of scientists that wrote them is unknown (not rejected as the video claims). Only the opinions of scientists using these phrases is known (ignoring the missing raw data, which is required in any statistical summary).

The goalposts are then moved in the conclusion to refer to ALL scientists, not just those that used either phrase.

The number is now 'accepted' as True. Any challenge to this number must be done by the same type of study (which itself is flawed), rather than any other type of study. This is the attempted force of a negative proof. The actual number is unknown. It was never studied.

Fortunately, there is a way out that is simple in science: consensus is simply not used. No amount of consensus, supporting evidence, etc. will ever prove, bless, sanctify, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory (including any theory of science).

In effect, this is an attempted proof by consensus, which is not valid. Consensus is not a proof. Attempting to use consensus as a proof only opens the door to any religion being named as 'science'.

A consensus of Christians believe that Jesus Christ exists, and the He is who He says He is. This is EXACTLY the same sort of consensus claimed by Cook's (and other that copied it) study. You simply look at papers written by religious men instead of papers written by 'climatologists' (religious men).



You make the same claim as the person in the video. You shame those who disagree with you as being ignorant. You are just as religious in your beliefs. You "" PARROT" them.


Quite opposite, actually. Are you referring to the correct video?


The Parrot Killer
28-03-2019 00:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: This is old. You, itn and company want us to live in the "now" without any concern for what was or is to come. It's a simple life where only your desires and needs matter.

James__, this is a religious cop out. I can't tell you how many times Christians have said this to me because I am an atheist.

Religions usually have some part of the dogma that bodes ill if the observances of the religion are not forthwith revered and adhered. Since I don't adhere to any theology, I can understand your sense of rejection at my "not revering and adhering" to yours.

I am an atheist environmentalist. I want an excellent environment, and that includes one with plenty of CO2. I want steak and milk; it's more than worth whatever methane that comes with it. Oh, and I love water vapor too.



Your comments can equally be applied to you and your friends. You've shown where no debate is possible because people must accept you and your friends beliefs.

You can try to deny mathematics all you want, it doesn't change it.
James___ wrote:
I am mindful that you didn't know the difference between center of gravity and the centre of mass.

There isn't any. Off topic.
James___ wrote:
Yet I am to accept your beliefs or I will suffer the consequences.

No, you are denying math.
James___ wrote:
Another way of looking at things is that it seems that you and ITN seems to think that it's rutting season. It's not.

Wandering off topic again.
James___ wrote:
Are you and ITN authorities supporting a set of principles that you fervently believe in?

Yes. Mathematics and science.
James___ wrote:
You both propose your own religious dogma.

They are not religions.


The Parrot Killer
28-03-2019 01:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote: What most people might miss is that you and itn want someone to go after.

I'm sure it must feel that way, but it's still a result of your contradictory religious dogma. Stop preaching that your WACKY religious dogma is somehow settled science and things will change instantly.

James___ wrote: When is the last time either of you got laid?

... which is effectively projecting your current sexual frustration. Any concern for me in this area is appreciated but misplaced.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-03-2019 02:12
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Your comments can equally be applied to you and your friends.

No, it does not ... but I appreciate the implication that I have friends.


James___ wrote: You've shown where no debate is possible because people must accept you and your friends beliefs.

Nope. You cannot offer anything in the way of debate because you cannot explain how science is false.

You problem is that your religion is as hard-line as it is contradictory. It teaches of wondrous miracles of "forcings,""feedbacks" and "Greenhouse Effect" ... all of which are violations of physics ... but then demands that they be called "science." This appeals to the scientifically illiterate because they're too naive to recognize the contradiction.

The bad news for believer's is that the aforementioned contradiction immediately renders your faith FALSE the moment someone who is scientifically literate joins the discussion. People like you are left feeling like there's no room for debate because there isn't any, unless you can prove science false.

James___ wrote: I am mindful that you didn't know the difference between center of gravity and the centre of mass.

Since when? Quote me the text where I confused the two.

In a rigid aircraft, CoM is the same as CoG because gravity is evenly distributed, and you can thank me for teaching you this.




James___ wrote: The definition of dogma;
dog·ma
/ˈdôɡmə/
noun
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

the definition of religious;
religious adjective
re·​li·​gious | \ ri-ˈli-jəs
\
Definition of religious

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity a religious person religious attitudes
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances joined a religious order
3a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b : fervent, zealous


So you clearly understand the nature of the religious dogma of Global Warming.

James___ wrote: Are you and ITN authorities supporting a set of principles that you fervently believe in?

Nope. The science laws we accept are both falsifiable and not yet shown to be false. No opinions are involved. No consensus is involved. No beliefs are involved.

Your religion, on the other hand, is completely unfalsifiable. All you have are beliefs, assumptions, opinions and consensus.

I truly hope that helps.



What most people might miss is that you and itn want someone to go after. Pavlov's Dog. A post is his assistant's footsteps which might represent food.
When is the last time either of you got laid?
That means to have sex with someone besides yourselves?
It does seem that the 2 of you are seeking sexual gratification by your interactions with unwilling hosts.
You know, by forcing your beliefs on others you are sowing your seed in accordance with Darwin and his On The Origin Of Species.
It is how the dominate of any species promulgates it's seed.
Edited on 28-03-2019 02:24
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate References needed, not rhetoric.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Research on changing absorptivity of water, etc, needed?911-11-2015 21:46
Articles
References
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact