CO2 Alarmism Has Tainted Modern Science
- Thread starter Heissonear
- Start date
We can accept the overwhelming scientific data instead of misrepresenting it and ignoring it like you have been doing.
Upvote
0
Oh good, we just have to accept it. That's not a solution. You don't need my money for that.
Do you have anything?
Upvote
0
No, but logic is something you should definitely put on the class schedule next semester.
Science is NOT done by consensus, but a good hypothesis can be expected to generate a consensus.
No one is refusing to say what you can do. Drive less, use less electricity, be willing to do with less. Be ready to accept some sacrifices.
In other words: stop whining about science you don't understand and stand out of the way.
Here's something to think about: Stabilization Wedges. http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/
(BTW, I like how you jump over to the "economic" angle when the science gets overwhelmingly against your science points!
)
Upvote
0
YOU already know what to do.
1. Stop being an impediment to actions. The more you crow about how AGW is all just a fake the more people will join you in science denial. (That's the first step)
2. Do with less. Less energy. Shave your energy consumption wherever you can. Install solar, drive fuel efficient vehicles, go full electric if you have a solar panel on your home! Reduce-reuse-recycle.
3. Be ready to pay more for the power you use and have less of it overall (in other words: don't start whining when we have to make more drastic cuts because people like you fought action on this topic for so long that it pushed to the point where we had to make even more dramatic changes)
The best thing I can think for someone like you is: stop standing in the way. Its because we've had to deal with whiners who don't want to crack a chemistry book or learn the science that we are in the situation we are now. We are running up against some hard limits here. We have to act soon. But so long as people think their junior high school level understanding of technical topics allows them to have a serious say in the discussion, we won't be able to move forward.
Upvote
0
What overwhelming "evidence"?
Do you call the last 18 years of the plateau in Earth's temperature overwelming evidence of "Global Warming"?
You mean 18 years of high release of man-made CO2 with no Global Warming. How odd.
It is suppost to be evidence not a story.
Upvote
0
Because we live in democracies we need to have a general agreement on our ability to TAKE ACTION. In this case our "expiration date" is fast approaching. But we have to get every yahoo who could barely pass junior high science class "onboard" with the consensus. And that's not easy given that many of them assume their gross ignorance of the topic means they are entitled to their "opinion" being given equal weight.
Sooner or later things will have to start happening. And it won't be pretty. And then we'll have to hear all about "tyranny!"
At least in previous case where science denialism TRIED to derail progress they failed and now they are quietly forgotten by the denialists themselves.
CFC's and the Montreal Protocol
Acid Rain
Cigarettes-Lung Cancer
How many times do the denialists have to make things harder and simultaneously be proven to be on the wrong side of science and history before we finally go with what science says is the most rational choice?
Upvote
0
Try getting an earth science degree. You'll see the evidence then. It's the stuff that makes up about 97% of the literature in climate research.
You could also do with a statistics course. You need to learn about time series regressions and cherry picking.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Let's start with this chart.
200 years of science demonstrating that increasing CO2 will trap more heat.
Upvote
0
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 8,291
- 1,735
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
You're a Christian, and yet you write something like that? Brother, have you actually prayed about your stance on climate change? I'm concerned for you spiritually now.
Upvote
0
Love the responses. They all missed the top shelf news .
We are dealing with "science" that is based on observations and validations.
This is the year 2015. What have we observed and can conclude?
First, "negative feedback" has appeared, not the predicted "positive feedback".
You guys need to be honest and non-bias.
Over 25% of Anthropogenic CO2 emissions released occurred since 2000.
What does that do to your predictions of Climate Sensitivity and "positive feedback" from CO2 emissions? Since 1998 the Earth temperature Plateau'ed, it stopped increasing.
Look at the predictions and observations.
Am I talking to "bias" people about AGW?
It appears so. Prove otherwise by 2015 observations verses AGW graphed calculations and predictions.
We are dealing with "science" that is based on observations and validations.
This is the year 2015. What have we observed and can conclude?
First, "negative feedback" has appeared, not the predicted "positive feedback".
You guys need to be honest and non-bias.
Over 25% of Anthropogenic CO2 emissions released occurred since 2000.
What does that do to your predictions of Climate Sensitivity and "positive feedback" from CO2 emissions? Since 1998 the Earth temperature Plateau'ed, it stopped increasing.
Look at the predictions and observations.
Am I talking to "bias" people about AGW?
It appears so. Prove otherwise by 2015 observations verses AGW graphed calculations and predictions.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Seeing the comments you make concerning AGW and greenhouse gasses with respect to your designation as a Geochemist bewilders me somewhat. Perhaps you would provide a chemical description of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that show them not the be the growing problem that some 97 percent of the worlds practicing climate scientists find it to be?
Upvote
0
Well, there's interpretation of data and interpretation of data.
Some economists were asked to evaluate the temperature trends and see if there was a hiatus or if the trending is upward. Only they weren't told the data was about temperature, they were told it was about a commodity price.
They agreed there was no haitus.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-reject-the-notion-of-a-global-warming-pause
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
False.
I and many other that oppose "the sky is falling" CAGW understand and agree thst CO2 emissions will and dors have an effect on Earth's temperature.
I will sau it again, the 97% number includes scientist who know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, thst man's hydrocarbon oxidation emissions, when burned cleanly, produce CO2 that increases over time in Earth's atmosphere.
Big deal. The "97% of all world practicing climate science" is an inaccurate fact, in stating such only "supports your side" and not both sides.
Are you bias?
The issue is the real world forcing of such Anthropogenic CO2 emissions on Earth's temperature.
And, the onesided view that the feedbacks will be "positive", as presented by IPCC.
What about looking in nature over time for posdible negative feedbacks. Is that called skepticism or science?
These typrs of science discussion have become extremely polarized. With the "we have settled science" side looking down on others who say "show me", like me.
If the GCMs were right, the Earth’s temperature showing the calculated forcing, and the +25% additional Anthropogenic CO2 emissions since 2000 letting all to observe what CO2 emissions induced forcing and associated predicted positive feedbacks are creating then I would follow the evidence. There would be no claims because of validation of the theory.
But in 2015 we see the opposite. Mother Nature is still in control, and CO2 Climate Sensitivity at this time well below 1°C.
These are factual observations. Let's set aside the intense polarization that is vibrantly pushing people to do extreme things and have intense emotions and mindsets.
I type on a vertual 2.5" keyboard, rxcuse the typo's.
Upvote
0
Actually, "the data" presented by Heissonear is not another interpretation of the same data, it is a deliberate misrepresentation of the same data. They choose the 1998 high point so the trend appears to decline, ignoring that climate trends are based on 30 years, not 10 years. Also ignored is the fact that those so-called decline years are 10 of the highest years on record. And never mind that the subsequent years past that trend are higher than the 1998 high point. The whole GW/CC denial camp is politically motivated, not science based and funded by the fossil fuel industry.
There was a paper recently published in the journal Politics and Policy by Sondre Båtstrand at the University of Bergen in Norway compared the climate positions of conservative political parties around the world. It compares the position of conservative political parties around the world with respect to climate change. The U.S. Republican party is the only conservative political party on the planet that pushes GW/CC skepticism.
Upvote
0
Are you trying to argue that there has not been a Plateau in Earth's temperature since 1998?
Upvote
0
You have not answered my question. Again, you present yourself as a Geochemist. Show me the CHEMISTRY where CO2 is not affecting global temperatures.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Rick, you for some reason continue to justify "qualifying people". And like others before you not happy with their qualifications given.
You will wind up talking to yourself again.
I could talk circles around you to expose ignorance you have in many parts if science, but I don't nor need to.
My knowledge base is natural science. Geochemistry and stratigraphy have been academic and occupational.
Now, are you going to wind up talking to yourself. Other natural scientist at the many places I work and present do not challenge me. What you question is my presence on a Christian Forum and being a Creationist. This brings disresonance in you.
Appartant age is unfalsable. Face it, our Creator knew everything, to the last possibility, before the Creation. He is that intelligent. Even understanding beforehand, when He made each atom we are (in October 2015) made of, and the electrons used to communicate by 8 bit-based binary language/software engineering.
Doubt and state I'm not a Geochemist again and you will be talking alone in posts towards me. It's infantry I do not align to. Go your way.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
