EdwinWillers
Well-Known Member
- Jan 13, 2010
- 19,443
- 5,258
- Country
- Niue
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Acclimatizing.In the absence of humans, what would the earths temperature be doing right now, rising or falling?
Upvote
0
Acclimatizing.In the absence of humans, what would the earths temperature be doing right now, rising or falling?
"Hyperbole?" - sure, so what - nothing wrong with that - just fighting bubbles with bubbles.
"Equivocation?" Hardly. But if you didn't get the point, I can repeat it...
"Not much else?" Seriously, what else needs be said? It's a hoax. I admit it's a wonderful chicken little story where many of the faith are running around whining "we're destroying the planet" - where its leaders and major proponents are making truckloads of money in the process - not to mention doing arguably irreparable damage to the world's economy - and systems of government...
On the other hand -
If you're truly that concerned about posts using exaggeration for effect, being somehow ambiguous, or otherwise lacking in content, one would have thought the FIRST post you'd attack would have been the OP's - the title alone is worthy of such attention.
"Climate denialism?"
Seriously??? - That's not hyperbole, equivocation, or lacking in content? Or do you truly believe anybody is so stupid as to "deny climate?" Or better yet, that Exxon is out there paying people to do it?
"Yo dude, c'mere - I got's ten bucks if yooz sez der's no climate."
"Wow! Ten bucks! Cool! Sure!
--- Thanks Exxon!!"
(Though I have to admit, such hyperbole, equivocation, and content as that would make that a great infomercial - especially if they offer some sort of two-fer deal...)
Which "facts" would those be - that the earth is cooling, or that it's warming, or that the climate is changing? Because all three have been marched before us as "fact," no doubt a consequence of Doctor Thaumaturgy's (and I can call him that because he said he was - fact) educated belief in the evolution of the paleoenvironmental ratio of 13-C to 12-C (which equals 1.083 - I did the math ) from either 1850 or 1898 ("the majority" hasn't come to consensus yet on that) to the present - to whit we are forced to conclude it's perfectly ok for the world's foremost experts on the subject to deplete an entire nation of its fleet of gas guzzling limousines to attend a conference on the disaster that is global warming (or cooling - take your pick).You're not really good at handling these things the rest of us like to call 'facts', are you?
Nah - I deny climate, and spent my ten bucks on 2.5 gallons of gas.Want to at least try contributing some counter-arguments, or even... facts?
LOL - nice try Art. But this is a discussion about being paid by Exxon to deny the climate. Ecology is a different topic entirely.Edwin is so worried about irreparable damage to the world's economy, but shows so little concern for irreparable damage to the world's ecosystems, and what that would mean not just for the world's economy, but for humanity at large. Never mind... so long as people are making money we shouldn't be concerned, so say the faithful free market fundamentalists. They don't like having their faith challenged by science, so that they call science 'faith'.
LOL - nice try Art. But this is a discussion about being paid by Exxon to deny the climate. Ecology is a different topic entirely.
's ok... that's a different topic too...Oh, I see... it's about Exxon funding denialism, and not about the free market fundamentalist faith that drives the denialism... my mistake.
's ok... that's a different topic too...
In the absence of humans, what would the earths temperature be doing right now, rising or falling?
One thing that immediately springs to mind is that we should be on the downside going into another ice age. Imbrie and Imbrie (1980) we are several thousand years late going into the next ice age (according to Milankovich cycles).
Our Climate Future - Big Idea - 7 July 2011Ever wondered what comes after global warming, and when the next ice age will arrive? Paleo-climatologist Curt Stager has. He takes the really long view of the future of our climate. What will the world look like in a hundred thousand years? Will humans exist? And what is 'climate whiplash'?
Which "facts" would those be - that the earth is cooling, or that it's warming, or that the climate is changing? Because all three have been marched before us as "fact,"
Nah - I deny climate, and spent my ten bucks on 2.5 gallons of gas.
Global Warming...haha..what a joke!!
LOL - the "meme" as you refer to it was nevertheless put forth and accepted as fact by many who, as many are doing with the current "meme" of global warming, swallowing it hook, line and sinker like good little followers should.Oooops. The cooling meme was a popular press and marginal claim during the 70s, and while everyone seems to remember the Time "Coming Ice Age" cover story, few (and apparently no deniers) know the real story behind it. I would think someone who fancies themselves so educated on the subject would know that, but I forget you don't have no fancy science book learnin'.
STUPENDOUS!I remember in one of my first (first of 5 - for those of you who are enamored by such inanity) college calculus courses sitting in lecture scratching my head for a couple classes trying to grasp some topic the professor was presenting. I wanted to raise my hand but no one in class was raising their hands - and frankly, I didn't want to be the first, or to otherwise appear somehow "dumb."
But at some point logic overcame emotion and I remember saying to myself, "to heck with this, I need this clarified" - and so I raised my hand. I felt every head in class turn my direction... but I asked the question anyway. I was shocked by what happened next - a dozen or so hands elsewhere went up after my question was answered, and continued through the end of the course.
97% are "absolutely convinced?" Looks like you are reading into the word "agree", don't you? You don't need to be "absolutely convinced" of something to agree with it.LOL - the "meme" as you refer to it was nevertheless put forth and accepted as fact by many who, as many are doing with the current "meme" of global warming, swallowing it hook, line and sinker like good little followers should.
And if you actually read what I wrote - admittedly in rather grand rhetorical style befitting the utterly grandiose claims of the "experts" - I'm not exactly someone who lacks "fancy science book learnin" - a claim I neither actually made (but nice try), nor is in fact true. But unlike some, I don't need to march forth my "credentials" in some vain attempt to make others look like silly, hick rubes - and ergo their "denialism" somehow proven full of "hick" error.
In other words incognito, the "I'm smart and you're not" argument for global warming is pure vanity.
There are so many topics one could discuss in this overall hoax, and within them so many categories - science, politics, psychology, economics...
Maybe we should start with the one already marched forth herein, since there are some here who are so impressed and taken by the vanity of "smarts" - the 97% agree argument.
You've seen the pictorial - 97 caricatures of people "who agree" and the differently colored 3 who don't - PROOF that.... well, let's think about - PROOF of nothing.
"Two independent studies..." - you know what that means? Two POLLS.
"Science" my dairy air.
I remember in one of my first (first of 5 - for those of you who are enamored by such inanity) college calculus courses sitting in lecture scratching my head for a couple classes trying to grasp some topic the professor was presenting. I wanted to raise my hand but no one in class was raising their hands - and frankly, I didn't want to be the first, or to otherwise appear somehow "dumb."
But at some point logic overcame emotion and I remember saying to myself, "to heck with this, I need this clarified" - and so I raised my hand. I felt every head in class turn my direction... but I asked the question anyway. I was shocked by what happened next - a dozen or so hands elsewhere went up after my question was answered, and continued through the end of the course.
A bunch of future engineers and physicists - too afraid of what their peers would think of them, that they would appear somehow "dumb" or some other nonsense.
"97% [of scientists] agree..." Well I have never given credence to polls - regardless their focus. First, for the simple reason that if someone needs to know what the majority is thinking before they can formulate their own opinion about a topic, their level of knowledge about the topic is very likely much less than their level of opinion and/or emotion - and the only effect of the poll is to reinforce what they already believe to be "true."
Moreover, I wonder just how many of the "97%" are absolutely convinced of their position (the poll demographic data isn't available), or how many would change their mind if peer pressure weren't a factor.
It's all speculation - but most importantly - it's a POLL. Big whoop.
Meh - that a small proportion of people disagree with the prevailing public opinion - particularly on PURELY religious matters such as AGW, is NEVER a valid argument that they're wrong - indeed the "appeal to the masses" logical fallacy is quite apropos in this case
Maybe we should start with the one already marched forth herein, since there are some here who are so impressed and taken by the vanity of "smarts" - the 97% agree argument.
You've seen the pictorial - 97 caricatures of people "who agree" and the differently colored 3 who don't - PROOF that.... well, let's think about - PROOF of nothing.
They don't like having their faith challenged by science, so they call science 'faith'.
One thing that immediately springs to mind is that we should be on the downside going into another ice age. Imbrie and Imbrie (1980) we are several thousand years late going into the next ice age (according to Milankovich cycles).
I was a skeptic for a while - I didn't know what to believe, so I read up on both sides. The agw side seems more likely to be true than the denier side, but it's not gospel....the way all reason is ignored, I'm sure, by the "faithful" who are in all sincerety defending "the faith" - ala Pope Urban VIII and his plethora of "qualified experts." Boy, talk about ideological rants...
You say you're a sciency guy. Have you looked at the other side with any seriousness?"Every national science academy on the planet?" ... is wrong.
Oooops. The cooling meme was a popular press and marginal claim during the 70s, and while everyone seems to remember the Time "Coming Ice Age" cover story, few (and apparently no deniers) know the real story behind it. I would think someone who fancies themselves so educated on the subject would know that, but I forget you don't have no fancy science book learnin'.
That article is pay for view according to the link. Do you have access to Nature? That article was from October 92. Did this upset stand or was it overthrown by subsequent data?I think you mean Milankovitch cycles. And no one should ever question such an appeal to authority. Oh, wait....
Quote
"One of the fundamental tenets of palaeoclimate modeling, the Milankovitch theory, is called into doubt by isotope analysis of a calcite vein, just reported in Science by Winograd and colleagues. The theory, which is backed up by a compelling bank of evidence, suggests that the ice ages determined, with unprecedented accuracy, in the new record cannot be reconciled with the planetary cyclicity. . .
Winograd and colleagues' evidence also turns on oxygen isotope data, this time from vein calcite coating the hanging wall of an extensional fault at Devils Hole, an aquifer in southern Nevada. In 1988, the authors published a date, 145,000 years, based on 234U-230Th dating for the end of the penultimate ice age (Termination II), marked by an increase in the 18O to 16O ratio, a change taken to mirror an increase in local precipitation. Although the date was only 17,000 year earlier than the previously accepted date of 128,000 years, if correct, this change is enough to bring Milankovitch mechanism into serious doubt. . .
I remain confused. The geochemist in me says that Devils Hole chronology is the best we have. And the palaeoclimatologist in me says that correlation between accepted marine chronology and Milankovitch cycles is just too convincing to be put aside. . .
One side will have to give, and maybe - just to be safe - climate modellers should start preparing themselves for a world without Milankovitch."
Source Upset for Milankovitch theory