Remember me
▼ Content

THE GLOBAL COOLING CONSENSUS IN THE 1970s


THE GLOBAL COOLING CONSENSUS IN THE 1970s27-02-2016 17:11
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Please watch my latest video on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VriOsL4nGOE
27-02-2016 17:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VriOsL4nGOE

Great. You compare today's Global Warming hype, as treated in Time and Newsweek, with all the vagueries, convolutions and bogus science by obvious non-scientists, to the exact same thing in the 70's. (except then it was Global Cooling) and you ridicule it and its complete invalidity.

So what? We already know all this.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
27-02-2016 18:42
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VriOsL4nGOE

Great. You compare today's Global Warming hype, as treated in Time and Newsweek, with all the vagueries, convolutions and bogus science by obvious non-scientists, to the exact same thing in the 70's. (except then it was Global Cooling) and you ridicule it and its complete invalidity.

So what? We already know all this.


.


No, you need to take some comprehension pills.

The hype about the 1970's "cooling" is now by people like you. Misrepresenting it as a big thing back then when it was not. Claiming that climatologists back then had a consensus on global cooling when they had not such thing.

I was studying space science (including the solar effects on the Earth's atmosphere) in college. I heard nothing about this from my college professors nor in the professional journals. So the claim of "most" or a consensus of scientists agreed with a global cooling prediction is a complete lie.

The present situation is that if anything the media are hyping the anti-AGW case. A recent study showed that 53% of articles on climate in the media (Tv, radio, papers, and magazines gave undue prominence to Anti-AGW arguments. It should be 3%.

PS you still have not answered that question. Cat got your tongue? Or aren't you man enough to own up to a blunder?
27-02-2016 23:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
00.10: There were climatologists in the 1970's?

01.18: 6 papers was really a consensus wasn't it? So was 7! Did you know there is no such thing as a consensus in the scientific method? It has no place there.

02.04: You use of the 'maybe' and 'but' words in the articles you are using to show the invalidity of the Global Cooling argument denies the Global Warming argument. The same phraseology is used in the media (and by 'scientists') today.

03.04: The 'ifs' and 'vague numbers' you mention are also still used to today to describe Global Warming.

03.22: Quote and misquotes are a main feature of the Global Warming argument today.

03.54: The quote vs the 'actual' quote does not change the meaning of the quote. Hilarious.

04.09: The time interval where cooling was to begin was not specified in either quote. You are changing the meaning of the quote by adding your own wording.

04.39: Judging a magazine's content by it's cover now?

04.51: Might I ask why you build this whole case for Global Cooling in the media, specifically Time magazine (which I guess represents the whole media to you), then tear it down by looking at magazine covers? Aren't you attempting to deny your own argument? Why is Times any more correct about Global Warming than Global Cooling?


You attempt to make a pretty stupid argument here, which is already based on the wrong idea that consensus (whether in the media or elsewhere) drives the scientific process. Near the end, you even attempt to deny the argument you just made!

How you expect this to prove either is occurring or has occurred is beyond me. Your media skills actually tend to suck. My kid and his friend can produce far better videos than yours.

Meanwhile the world continues to roll along, ignoring you and your consensus.
Edited on 27-02-2016 23:55
28-02-2016 01:07
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:
00.10: There were climatologists in the 1970's?


Demonstration of ignorance. The Chinese invented climatology in the 13th century.

01.18: 6 papers was really a consensus wasn't it? So was 7! Did you know there is no such thing as a consensus in the scientific method? It has no place there.


Pay attention- I said for every one paper that discussed cooling there we 7 papers that discussed warming. So for the 6 papers that discussed warming there were 42 that discussed warming. Can't you read a graph?

02.04: You use of the 'maybe' and 'but' words in the articles you are using to show the invalidity of the Global Cooling argument denies the Global Warming argument. The same phraseology is used in the media (and by 'scientists') today.

03.04: The 'ifs' and 'vague numbers' you mention are also still used to today to describe Global Warming.


The maybes were used in the newspaper article to indicate that the conclusions were tentative. This is stark contrast to how they are presented today by the denialist community who seem to think they were carved in stone.

03.22: Quote and misquotes are a main feature of the Global Warming argument today.


Please give an example of a climatologist who misquotes the anti-AGW community. On the other side you have the videos that I have posted pointing out the deliberate misquotes of many of the leading climate deniers on the web.

03.54: The quote vs the 'actual' quote does not change the meaning of the quote. Hilarious.


That misquote (omitting two key phrases) was used by Sleschinger to argue that the climatologists said that we should have been in an ice age by 2004 - look how wrong they were. The full quote indicates that the cooling process is very slow and would take place over thousands of years, not decades.

04.09: The time interval where cooling was to begin was not specified in either quote. You are changing the meaning of the quote by adding your own wording.


What wording did I add? I copied that directly from the report

04.39: Judging a magazine's content by it's cover now?


Nope, I ma judging those who falsely portrayed these covers as proof that the climatologists all believed that there was global cooling about to happen.

04.51: Might I ask why you build this whole case for Global Cooling in the media, specifically Time magazine (which I guess represents the whole media to you), then tear it down by looking at magazine covers? Aren't you attempting to deny your own argument? Why is Times any more correct about Global Warming than Global Cooling?


At the beginning I clearly state that the issue here is that the whole argument that climatologists were all or mostly predicting global cooling in the 1970s is entirely bogus.

You attempt to make a pretty stupid argument here, which is already based on the wrong idea that consensus (whether in the media or elsewhere) drives the scientific process. Near the end, you even attempt to deny the argument you just made!

How you expect this to prove either is occurring or has occurred is beyond me. Your media skills actually tend to suck. My kid and his friend can produce far better videos than yours.

Meanwhile the world continues to roll along, ignoring you and your consensus.


The word "consensus" about global cooling in this context is used by the anti AGW community, not by me. I am merely showing that one of their favourite go-to talking points is rubbish.

I understand and have explained clearly what "consensus" means in a scientific setting. Stop trying to use semantics to avoid the main point.
28-02-2016 07:17
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
The 1970's Cooling Myth is one of those ignorant myths that just won't stay dead.


There was an article published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 2008 by Peterson et al that debunked the myth as well.

Peterson, T.C., Connolley, W.M. and Fleck, J., 2008. The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), p.1325.

Full copy here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1



Edited on 28-02-2016 07:17
28-02-2016 09:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
00.10: There were climatologists in the 1970's?


Demonstration of ignorance. The Chinese invented climatology in the 13th century.
BS. The Chinese didn't call it climatology, and the scientists of the day were not climate scientists.

DRKTS wrote:
01.18: 6 papers was really a consensus wasn't it? So was 7! Did you know there is no such thing as a consensus in the scientific method? It has no place there.


Pay attention- I said for every one paper that discussed cooling there we 7 papers that discussed warming. So for the 6 papers that discussed warming there were 42 that discussed warming. Can't you read a graph?
Point ceded, not that it makes much difference.

DRKTS wrote:
02.04: You use of the 'maybe' and 'but' words in the articles you are using to show the invalidity of the Global Cooling argument denies the Global Warming argument. The same phraseology is used in the media (and by 'scientists') today.

03.04: The 'ifs' and 'vague numbers' you mention are also still used to today to describe Global Warming.


The maybes were used in the newspaper article to indicate that the conclusions were tentative. This is stark contrast to how they are presented today by the denialist community who seem to think they were carved in stone.

The Religion Outsiders (what you call denialists) knew it was BS then, just as they know it is BS now. No Outsider presents the Global Cooling noise in the 1970's as carved in stone. They use it to show similarity between the BS then and the BS now.

DRKTS wrote:
03.22: Quote and misquotes are a main feature of the Global Warming argument today.


Please give an example of a climatologist who misquotes the anti-AGW community. On the other side you have the videos that I have posted pointing out the deliberate misquotes of many of the leading climate deniers on the web.

Stay tuned to your local forum for approximately one day's worth of posts. If you don't want to wait that long, you might check out many of the posts here in the recent past.

DRKTS wrote:
03.54: The quote vs the 'actual' quote does not change the meaning of the quote. Hilarious.


That misquote (omitting two key phrases) was used by Sleschinger to argue that the climatologists said that we should have been in an ice age by 2004 - look how wrong they were. The full quote indicates that the cooling process is very slow and would take place over thousands of years, not decades.

I really don't care about Sleschinger's opinion. You cannot speak for him, and neither can I.

DRKTS wrote:
04.09: The time interval where cooling was to begin was not specified in either quote. You are changing the meaning of the quote by adding your own wording.


What wording did I add? I copied that directly from the report.

Whereupon you changed the meaning of it by specifying a time interval that is in neither quote. You added a time interval for cooling to begin.

DRKTS wrote:
04.39: Judging a magazine's content by it's cover now?


Nope, I ma judging those who falsely portrayed these covers as proof that the climatologists all believed that there was global cooling about to happen.

First, you are quoting a magazine, not scientists. Second, this magazine, along with got THEIR story from a few scientists making the Cooling argument, based on particulate matter in the air. Then, as now, consensus was claimed. Then, as now, consensus in science is meaningless.

DRKTS wrote:
04.51: Might I ask why you build this whole case for Global Cooling in the media, specifically Time magazine (which I guess represents the whole media to you), then tear it down by looking at magazine covers? Aren't you attempting to deny your own argument? Why is Times any more correct about Global Warming than Global Cooling?


At the beginning I clearly state that the issue here is that the whole argument that climatologists were all or mostly predicting global cooling in the 1970s is entirely bogus.
Where do you think Time magazine and the New York Times got this idea? It didn't come out of a void. It came out of a few scientists bringing up the Cooling argument based on particulate matter in the air at the time. There was also no degree in climatology until after 2000.

DRKTS wrote:
You attempt to make a pretty stupid argument here, which is already based on the wrong idea that consensus (whether in the media or elsewhere) drives the scientific process. Near the end, you even attempt to deny the argument you just made!

How you expect this to prove either is occurring or has occurred is beyond me. Your media skills actually tend to suck. My kid and his friend can produce far better videos than yours.

Meanwhile the world continues to roll along, ignoring you and your consensus.


The word "consensus" about global cooling in this context is used by the anti AGW community, not by me. I am merely showing that one of their favourite go-to talking points is rubbish.

You are showing something that never existed has never existed. Your idea of Outsider talking points is rubbish.

DRKTS wrote:
I understand and have explained clearly what "consensus" means in a scientific setting. Stop trying to use semantics to avoid the main point.

I am not using semantics here. Consensus has no place in the scientific method. It is YOU that keeps trying to assign one. Consensus only has meaning in political or religious sense.

As far as I can tell, you HAVE NO MAIN POINT. You seem to have produced this video to put down an argument that never existed.


The Parrot Killer
28-02-2016 13:56
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:


Then, as now, consensus was claimed. Then, as now, consensus in science is meaningless.


Reference please
28-02-2016 15:04
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Then, as now, consensus was claimed. Then, as now, consensus in science is meaningless.


Reference please

He has posted a number of times that he believes that "supporting evidence plays no role in science." So don't expect any references or links to sources with evidence that supports his claims.

It also means he can just ignore any evidence anyone else provides.

That's a very convenient belief for a science denier who has no evidence at all to support his wacky conspiracy theory beliefs and junk-science claims


As he apparently believes he is an 'expert' on everything, in his delusional 'reality', you're just supposed to agree with him and believe whatever he tells you.



Edited on 28-02-2016 15:24
28-02-2016 16:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
DRKTS wrote: No, you need to take some comprehension pills.

You need some honesty pills.

Anyone can talk about today's Global Warming hype in exactly the same way you rip apart the Global Cooling hype from the 70s.

It's all hype for the scientifically illiterate and gullible, for entertainment purposes only, like "the search for Bigfoot" or "UFO discoveries."

DRKTS wrote:I was studying space science (including the solar effects on the Earth's atmosphere) in college.

Enrolling in a class is one thing but actually showing up and paying attention is another. Did you even attend an accredited school?

DRKTS wrote: So the claim of "most" or a consensus of scientists agreed with a global cooling prediction is a complete lie.

When I studied physics in college, there was no "greenhouse gas," "greenhouse effect," or any other violation of physics being preached. The idea that there is some sort of "consensus" among scientists that Global Warming violations of physics are somehow occurring today is a lie.

DRKTS wrote:PS you still have not answered that question.

...and you never addressed any of mine which were asked first. Your tactic for EVADING is to pretend you are waiting for answers to a question I have already answered...twice.

So how about you start providing some answers?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
28-02-2016 17:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
DRKTS wrote:Please give an example of a climatologist who misquotes the anti-AGW community.

Irrelevant. The "climatologist" congregation is the AGW community.

Please cite an accredited degreed physicist who claims that CO2 can create energy or that a body's temperature can increase while its radiance decreases.

Are you going to make a video on "greenhouse effect"? Will it involve the earth's radiance being "slowed" or otherwise being reduced, somehow resulting in an increase in earth's temperature?

Your "Dishonesty Series" of videos for the scientifically illiterate and gullibe won't be complete until you do.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
28-02-2016 21:05
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
You need some honesty pills.

Anyone can talk about today's Global Warming hype in exactly the same way you rip apart the Global Cooling hype from the 70s.

It's all hype for the scientifically illiterate and gullible, for entertainment purposes only, like "the search for Bigfoot" or "UFO discoveries."


The difference now there is overwhelming scientific evidence for AGW, back then there was little evidence for global cooling and lots for global warming.

Enrolling in a class is one thing but actually showing up and paying attention is another. Did you even attend an accredited school?


Yes, my university is ranked 14th in the world (ahead of places like Columbia, Duke, UCLA, and Cornell). It is considered to be the leading multidisciplinary research university in the world. That is now, when I attended it (1970s) it was one of the most difficult universities to get into (on a par with Oxbridge, in fact I turned down an offer from Oxford to go there).


When I studied physics in college, there was no "greenhouse gas," "greenhouse effect," or any other violation of physics being preached. The idea that there is some sort of "consensus" among scientists that Global Warming violations of physics are somehow occurring today is a lie.


You must be very old or did not study physics very attentively. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Fourier in 1824. I heard about it in grammar school.

...and you never addressed any of mine which were asked first. Your tactic for EVADING is to pretend you are waiting for answers to a question I have already answered...twice.

So how about you start providing some answers?


Another dodge. You sound like a primary school kid: "I asked first!" On that thread you did not. Is it so hard to answer that question with a simple yes or no?
28-02-2016 22:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Then, as now, consensus was claimed. Then, as now, consensus in science is meaningless.


Reference please


Ok, let's start by looking at a few questions:

What is a consensus?

Who is it made up of? (Who owns science?)

How many are required to form a consensus that overrules all other questions of a theory?

How does the consensus reconcile with a falsification of a theory? or does it override the falsification?

If a belief in something is widespread, such as God, is that a consensus worthy of being science? What about the consensus of others who believe in no god at all? What about the consensus of those who believe in a different god or gods?

Where was consensus when Galileo announced a theory that flew in the face of Aristotle and church teachings (who agreed with Aristotle).


The Parrot Killer
28-02-2016 22:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Ceist wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Then, as now, consensus was claimed. Then, as now, consensus in science is meaningless.


Reference please

He has posted a number of times that he believes that "supporting evidence plays no role in science." So don't expect any references or links to sources with evidence that supports his claims.

It also means he can just ignore any evidence anyone else provides.

That's a very convenient belief for a science denier who has no evidence at all to support his wacky conspiracy theory beliefs and junk-science claims


As he apparently believes he is an 'expert' on everything, in his delusional 'reality', you're just supposed to agree with him and believe whatever he tells you.


Ceist tends to be a liar, but he is correct about one thing. I usually don't post links. I don't believe in link wars. I believe in reasoning it out yourself. To that end, instead of posting links, I usually explain the foundations of my statement. I also encourage people to research it themselves. They learn stuff that way.

The lie in this case is a common one he uses, that I expect you to just take my word on it. I don't. Of course he is a firm believer in link wars.


The Parrot Killer
28-02-2016 22:09
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
LOL! That's hilarious. IBAwesome claims he "studied physics in college".


Judging by what I've read of his posts on this forum, his understanding of science, and physics in particular, would earn him a big red F at a high-school level.

Perhaps he truly believes he only needs to assert over and over again that he is "discussing real science" and "speaks for the body of science" and everyone should just accept his wacky evidence-free delusional beliefs.




Edited on 28-02-2016 23:02
28-02-2016 22:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote: Judging by what I've read of his posts on the internet, his understanding of science, and physics in particular, would earn him a big red F at a high-school level.

"Ceist" and "judging" in the same sentence. Wow! That's up there with a "quadriplegic running in a foot race."

For a person to warrant an "F" from Ceist, s/he need only discuss real science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
28-02-2016 23:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
DRKTS wrote: The difference now there is overwhelming scientific evidence for AGW,

All religions claim to have "overwhelming evidence" and "signs from the heavens" and to be "undeniable," "irrefutable" and "beyond any doubt."

We've heard it all before. Your particular twist is that you dishonestly insert the word "scientific" specifically to dupe other gullible people.

Your religion, like most others, involves mysterious miracles that violate the laws of physics. There is nothing scientific about your unfalsifiable faith or the "evidence" you claim supports it.


DRKTS wrote: back then there was little evidence for global cooling and lots for global warming.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has been convinced by your mistaken belief in supporting evidence being science that you never actually paid attention in any science classes you might have taken.


DRKTS wrote: You must be very old or did not study physics very attentively. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Fourier in 1824.

There is no "greenhouse effect" much less one that was "discovered" in 1824.

Would you care to cite the news announcement in which Fourier stated to the press "I discovered 'greenhouse effect'?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
28-02-2016 23:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Ceist wrote:
LOL! That's hilarious. IBAwesome claims he "studied physics in college".


Judging by what I've read of his posts on this forum, his understanding of science, and physics in particular, would earn him a big red F at a high-school level.

Perhaps he truly believes he only needs to assert over and over again that he is "discussing real science" and "speaks for the body of science" and everyone should just accept his wacky evidence-free delusional beliefs.


And we should accept yours? You have no evidence either. The stuff you bring up is often manufactured, fudged, or just seriously misinterpreted by you. Sometimes all three.

Take your anger and stuff it in your left nostril.


The Parrot Killer
28-02-2016 23:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Into the Night wrote:If a belief in something is widespread, such as God, is that a consensus worthy of being science? What about the consensus of others who believe in no god at all? What about the consensus of those who believe in a different god or gods?

These are all great questions.

I don't think it matters in which particular gods one believes. All that matters is that there is an overwhelming consensus that divine deity(ies) are driving/forcing nature.

As for the second half of the requirement, we also have an overwhelming consensus that there is overwhelming evidence that divine deity(ies) are driving/forcing nature.

Note: employing the DRKTS/Ceist/Climate Scientist principle for good measure, we will call the supporting evidence "scientific evidence" to seal the deal.

Ergo, we have science ...for religion.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
28-02-2016 23:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:If a belief in something is widespread, such as God, is that a consensus worthy of being science? What about the consensus of others who believe in no god at all? What about the consensus of those who believe in a different god or gods?

These are all great questions.

I don't think it matters in which particular gods one believes. All that matters is that there is an overwhelming consensus that divine deity(ies) are driving/forcing nature.

As for the second half of the requirement, we also have an overwhelming consensus that there is overwhelming evidence that divine deity(ies) are driving/forcing nature.

Note: employing the DRKTS/Ceist/Climate Scientist principle for good measure, we will call the supporting evidence "scientific evidence" to seal the deal.

Ergo, we have science ...for religion.



.

Exactly my point.
We have consensus.



The Parrot Killer
29-02-2016 13:00
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
All religions claim to have "overwhelming evidence" and "signs from the heavens" and to be "undeniable," "irrefutable" and "beyond any doubt."

We've heard it all before. Your particular twist is that you dishonestly insert the word "scientific" specifically to dupe other gullible people.

Your religion, like most others, involves mysterious miracles that violate the laws of physics. There is nothing scientific about your unfalsifiable faith or the "evidence" you claim supports it.


Religion is about faith not evidence. If there was the same level of evidence of the existence of god(s) as there is AGW then 97% of the people on the planet would be following one religion. 2% would be agnostics. 1% atheists.


I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has been convinced by your mistaken belief in supporting evidence being science that you never actually paid attention in any science classes you might have taken.


Dumb and getting dumber. That sounds a matter of faith not fact.


There is no "greenhouse effect" much less one that was "discovered" in 1824.

Would you care to cite the news announcement in which Fourier stated to the press "I discovered 'greenhouse effect'?


It would have been in French, silly. The AIP on the discovery of global warming....

Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768-1830), French mathematician and natural philosopher, did groundbreaking work in mathematics and the theory of heat. He was the first to propose that the Earth's atmosphere acts to raise the planet's temperature.


"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide, are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.





.[/quote]
29-02-2016 13:44
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
All religions claim to have "overwhelming evidence" and "signs from the heavens" and to be "undeniable," "irrefutable" and "beyond any doubt."

We've heard it all before. Your particular twist is that you dishonestly insert the word "scientific" specifically to dupe other gullible people.

Your religion, like most others, involves mysterious miracles that violate the laws of physics. There is nothing scientific about your unfalsifiable faith or the "evidence" you claim supports it.


Religion is about faith not evidence. If there was the same level of evidence of the existence of god(s) as there is AGW then 97% of the people on the planet would be following one religion. 2% would be agnostics. 1% atheists.


I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has been convinced by your mistaken belief in supporting evidence being science that you never actually paid attention in any science classes you might have taken.


Dumb and getting dumber. That sounds a matter of faith not fact.


There is no "greenhouse effect" much less one that was "discovered" in 1824.

Would you care to cite the news announcement in which Fourier stated to the press "I discovered 'greenhouse effect'?


It would have been in French, silly. The AIP on the discovery of global warming....

Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768-1830), French mathematician and natural philosopher, did groundbreaking work in mathematics and the theory of heat. He was the first to propose that the Earth's atmosphere acts to raise the planet's temperature.


"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide, are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.





Here's the link for your quote:

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M085

Prof Spencer Weart's online version of his textbook on the American Institute of Physics website, is a great educational resource for anyone who wants to learn about the history of the science involved in global warming. I read it a couple of years back and ended up reading a lot of the cited early research papers.

Weart, Spencer R. The discovery of global warming. Harvard University Press, 2008.



Edited on 29-02-2016 13:46
29-02-2016 13:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
DRKTS wrote: Religion is about faith not evidence.

Religion is about unfalsifiable faith based on one's interpretation of one's experiences (i.e. observations, evidence, etc.) and also the extent one was coerced/duped/manipulated vs.one's gullibility/impressionability.

DRKTS wrote: If there was the same level of evidence of the existence of god(s) as there is AGW then 97% of the people on the planet would be following one religion. 2% would be agnostics. 1% atheists.

1. Owing largely to the base Marxist tactic of greatly exaggerating one's position to be in the majority, you are clearly overstating the percentages of a rapidly dying Global Warming religion.

2. The same amount of "supporting evidence" does exist for fundamentalist Christianity as it does for fundamentalist Global Warming. It's the exact same planet for both.

DRKTS wrote: It would have been in French, silly. The AIP on the discovery of global warming....

Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768-1830), French mathematician and natural philosopher, did groundbreaking work in mathematics and the theory of heat. He was the first to propose that the Earth's atmosphere acts to raise the planet's temperature.


"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide, are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.


Where are the words "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas" and "radiative forcing"? Why does the quote above need to tell readers what John Tyndall understood? It turns out John Tyndall did not understand anything of the sort. In fact, he was quite mistaken in that area which is why none of it ever made it into the body of science. Do you know why there is no "Tyndall constant" or "Tyndall's Global Warming equation"?

You need to stop getting all your information off of bogus religion blogs that push WACKY Global Warming dogma. I know you can't discern religion from science but all that means is that you should perhaps ask someone before you post.

Please just give me a link to the French transcript of Fourier's announcement.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
29-02-2016 14:54
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Who knew the American Institute of Physics website and a textbook published by Harvard University Press were 'bogus religious blogs'?


Or that all the earth sciences textbooks and hundreds of thousands of published research papers in Science Journals since Tyndall were just "wacky religious beliefs"?

Lest we forget, in over 1450 posts, IBAwesome has only ever posted a handful of *cough* 'truly authoritative sources' (his words) to support his ludicrous pseudoscience and conspiracy claims:

-a blog run by a guy called Cliff Harris with zero science background who believes he can predict the climate using the Bible. Harris claims to be one of the "world's top ten climatologists". He's also 'chemtrails' conspiracy theorist.

- the "Ice Age Now" blog run by retired architect with zero background in science and crackpot extraordinaire Robert W Felix.

Here's a little background info on Felix:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/666-robert-w-felix.html

- a first year intro to Physics textbook that IBAwesome cited to claim the "greenhouse effect was bunk" because it supposedly said nothing about the 'greenhouse' effect. Hilariously, when shown actual screenshots of the pages where it did, he went on a long rant and claimed that it was a "complete fabrication".


http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/hilarious-scientifically-illiterate-posts-by-greenhouse-effect-deniers-d20-e1012.php#post_6909



Edited on 29-02-2016 15:25
29-02-2016 15:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote:Lest we forget, in over 1450 posts, IBAwesome has only ever posted a handful of *cough* 'truly authoritative sources' (his words) to support his ludicrous pseudoscience and conspiracy claims:

-a blog run by a guy called Cliff Harris with zero science background who believes he can predict the climate using the Bible. Harris claims to be one of the "world's top ten climatologists". He's also 'chemtrails' conspiracy theorist.

- the "Ice Age Now" blog run by retired architect with zero background in science and crackpot extraordinaire Robert W Felix.

Here's a little background info on Felix:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/666-robert-w-felix.html

- a first year intro to Physics textbook that IBAwesome cited to claim the "greenhouse effect was bunk" because it supposedly said nothing about the 'greenhouse' effect. Hilariously, when shown actual screenshots of the pages where it did, he went on a long rant and claimed that it was a "complete fabrication".



I have to hand it to you. Most people would prefer to hide their impotence. You hang it out there for all to see, drawing attention to it and building awareness for the cause.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
29-02-2016 16:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Poor IBAwesome.

Has he really run out of his usual vitriolic emissions and is now reduced to making limp dick comments?


Oh noes!

Where's his lil' buddy Into the Dark to give him a hand?



Edited on 29-02-2016 16:29
29-02-2016 17:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote: Poor IBAwesome. Has he really run out of his usual vitriolic emissions and is now reduced to making limp dick comments?

As long as you're around prematurely ejaculating pretenses of speaking for others because ad hominem is your only climax then you can plan on remaining similarly frustrated.

If, perhaps, you can find release in something involving actual interaction with others you won't need to feign bravado in a misguided attempt to gain the attention and/or affections of others.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
29-02-2016 17:23
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
*Ceist curiously notices that IBAwesome is staring into a mirror talking to himself*


29-02-2016 19:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote:*Ceist curiously notices that IBAwesome is staring into a mirror talking to himself*

I have to rehearse my acceptance speeches. Some people are great off the cuff. I, on the other hand, need to organize my thoughts, get them down on paper and just go over and over until I'm comfortable.

You haven't run out of Kleenex, have you?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
11-03-2016 07:56
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
I saw a reference to John Tyndall above. I have attached an interesting paper from the Tyndall Centre. Have people been brainwashed?

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp58.pdf
11-03-2016 12:10
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Please note that Tyndall working papers are "work in progress". Whilst they are
commented on by Tyndall researchers, they have not been subject to a full peer review.
The accuracy of this work and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the
author(s) alone and not the Tyndall Centre.


yes interesting.
11-03-2016 14:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
arthur18 wrote:
I saw a reference to John Tyndall above. I have attached an interesting paper from the Tyndall Centre. Have people been brainwashed?

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp58.pdf

It's all about mind-games to bring more people into the Church of Global Warming, to include the strategic use of the name "Climate Change" where that would be most effective.

The University of East Anglia. Say no more.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
13-03-2016 10:23
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Into the Night wrote:I usually don't post links.
That has been noted.

Into the Night wrote:I don't believe in link wars.
Exchanging information cannot be classed as warfare.

Into the Night wrote:I believe in reasoning it out yourself.
That explains why you're so often wrong.

Into the Night wrote:To that end, instead of posting links, I usually explain the foundations of my statement.
Based on your own observations and conclusions.

Into the Night wrote:I also encourage people to research it themselves.
In the case of climate change, impossible without referring to other people's studies, usually via links.

Into the Night wrote:They learn stuff that way.
Not always the right stuff, you make that obvious.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
13-03-2016 18:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Earthling wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I usually don't post links.
That has been noted.

Once it is expressly stated, it is stupid to make a passive voice reference to it having been noted.

Earthling wrote:Exchanging information cannot be classed as warfare.

Exchanging worthless, non-authoritative, propaganda links just to demonstrate one's hero-worship cannot be classed as exchanging information.

Earthling wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I believe in reasoning it out yourself.
That explains why you're so often wrong.

This explains why you are virtually never right.

Earthling wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I also encourage people to research it themselves.
In the case of climate change, impossible without referring to other people's studies, usually via links.

Exactly. It's that way with any unfalsifiable religion. Into the Night was talking about science, math and logic, however.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
14-03-2016 00:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Earthling wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I usually don't post links.
That has been noted.

Apparently not. You keep bringing it up as if it were somehow a problem.

Earthling wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I don't believe in link wars.
Exchanging information cannot be classed as warfare.

It certainly can. The purpose of any link war is to show brag about how much everyone thinks you know. The futility of it is that it only shows you know nothing and cannot think for yourself.

Earthling wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I believe in reasoning it out yourself.
That explains why you're so often wrong.

No, it explains why you are so often misled by someone's quantity of links.

Earthling wrote:
Into the Night wrote:To that end, instead of posting links, I usually explain the foundations of my statement.
Based on your own observations and conclusions.

Not true, I have my sources. However, that doesn't matter even if they were purely my own observations and conclusions (some of them are). To claim that a point of argument is irrelevant purely on its source is Bulverism. It is a type of bigotry.

Earthling wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I also encourage people to research it themselves.
In the case of climate change, impossible without referring to other people's studies, usually via links.

It is quite possible. You don't even have to use 'studies'. Books still work. Libraries still work.

Earthling wrote:
Into the Night wrote:They learn stuff that way.
Not always the right stuff, you make that obvious.

Which is why you have to take time to see other views than one 'side' of it, and is also why you have to take time to see them as views and nothing else. No book, journal, weblink, etc. is authoritative. All of them were written by people. Everyone has a different view. If you refuse to accept that, than you will never see another viewpoint. You eyes and mind are closed.

I have looked at the Global Warming argument from the viewpoint of data and found nothing but problems in it that would put any experimental scientist or mathematician to shame. I have found instrumentation being claimed that simply doesn't exist in any form, assumptions of instrumentation accuracy, assumptions of instrumentation design or reliability, etc.

I have looked at it from the viewpoint of politics and found a small conspiracy that has agents inside NOAA and NASA, as well as government interests that conform to their own success metrics that have nothing to do with the truth.

I have looked at it purely from the scientific viewpoint against existing physical laws that are currently accepted and found too many conflicts with those laws.

I have looked at it from the viewpoint of history and found the argument making too many changes in history to make it conform to the argument itself.

I have looked at it from the viewpoint of philosophy, and found the Warming argument to not even be science or a scientific theory. I have found the argument rife with improper translations from science into mathematics or logic, gross math errors, a failure to understand various branches of mathematics, logical errors, failure to understand either formal or informal logic, and prediction schemes that are more similar to consulting chicken entrails than anything from these disciplines.

My only conclusion by combining these viewpoints is that the entire warming argument is nothing more than a Religion, complete with a priesthood and religious leaders, which the faithful chant. Any Outsider of the Religion is to be put down by any means (argumentum ad baculum, bigotry, bulverism, ad hominem, reifications, proofs by assertions, onus probandi, ludic fallacies, or just plain attempts of argument ad nauseam, to name few). You yourself have used many of these, though I called you on just a few of them.

There are many books on philosophy, chemistry, the scientific method (more modern than Aristotle's), existing physical laws, mathematics, logic in both its formal and informal form, and history. There are also many websites. Many of these take some conflicting views. Many others make sense. This is why you have to read more than one viewpoint based on some kind of consensus. The first thing you have to do is drop the idea of consensus, since it is nothing more than a political or religious term.

It takes time to learn this stuff, but it CAN be learned, if you are willing to do so. If you are not, you are a prisoner of ignorance and the Religion. I cannot force anyone to learn. You must take the initiative to do it yourself. That's why link wars are so useless.

Rather than putting someone down because they don't provide links, try to find material that supports their view for a moment instead so you can see where they are coming from. I have done this for the Church of Global Warming, I expect the same from you.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate THE GLOBAL COOLING CONSENSUS IN THE 1970s:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Consensus607-08-2019 05:33
Burning fossil fuel reduce O2 and increase CO2 and CO2 is a cooling gas so why420-06-2019 06:30
IPCC sucks. They have no answer for natural climatic cooling other than painting houses black to decrease019-04-2019 16:32
The dangerous cooling trend in mainland America. How will it impact?125-03-2019 19:38
Does increase in Arctic sea ice indicate global cooling trend?025-03-2019 17:27
▲ 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