Is Global Warming Real?

[April_Rose]

I will not go off topic on your post. I will just say i believe the creation described in the Bible.

Well alright but just so you know nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat.

 

[JackRT]

Well alright but just so you know nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat.

Actually, Biblical cosmology is of a flat earth with an overhead sky dome.

 

[April_Rose]

Actually, Biblical cosmology is of a flat earth with an overhead sky dome.

Well,.. I never heard of that but anyways back to the topic at hand.

 

[Strathos]

The Bible says nothing explicit about the shape of the earth.

 

[Strathos]

I see Israel is under water. Interesting.

Not completely. Some regions, like the Dead Sea, are already below sea level though, so it's not surprising that a lot of it would be inundated.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In addition to the problems already mentioned, there is the prospect of some tropical regions becoming uninhabitable due to extreme temperatures during heatwaves. Not everyone has access to air-conditioning. If this happens, large numbers of people would try to migrate to cooler latitudes causing massive conflict.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Well for one thing, warmer oceans means more powerful hurricanes, and more of them.

The reality is that the scientific evidence and research has suggested the total opposite. But most people don't know that, because they've swallowed all the alarmist propaganda without ever thinking about it, or questioning anything they're told.

One of the experts tasked with contributing to the IPCC reports was a hurricane scientist, Chris Landsea. In 2005 he resigned because his research was being deliberately mis-represented to create an alarmist narrative. You can read his resignation letter by clicking this link. In his letter he states:

All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

If you are genuinely interested in what is really going on with climate, I suggest that you start reading some alternative sources, starting with this article.

 

[Halbhh]

Look and see --

Global Climate Report - June 2020 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

It simply is warmer when you average the entire world together, than it was 40 and 60 years ago.

Keep in mind when I'm asking this question that I have special needs so please don't leave a whole bunch of complicated responses,.. but I know a little bit of what it is already but can somebody please explain it in Layman's terms? Also in your opinion is it really going to happen?

 

[lordjeff]

Warming is a process. They have tallied a 1.6 degree upward increase over a century. The time span evaluated is not conclusive enough esp when relating to the other 4.5 million years that the earth has been around. The earth has gone thru several greenhouse & icehouse states. People must keep in mind that we have exhibited more urbanization--more people, more vehicles, more asphalt, more utilities, more skyscrapers sets up urban heat islands. The overall supplier of energy & warmth still rests with our Sun.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you are genuinely interested in what is really going on with climate, I suggest that you start reading some alternative sources, starting with this article.

The company that owns that site, whose director is a school teacher who claims CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, has a reputation as promoting conspiracies and pseudoscience (including anti-vax propaganda).

Just sayin'.

 

[timothyu]

The company that owns that site, whose director is a school teacher who claims CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, has a reputation as promoting conspiracies and pseudoscience (including anti-vax propaganda).

Just sayin'.

Is that like when the church used to cry heresy as a way to discredit?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is that like when the church used to cry heresy as a way to discredit?

Probably not. I was just curious about a recommended source and checked into its background - what I posted is what I discovered.

 

[timothyu]

what I posted is what I discovered.

That the company promotes itself as conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientists? Nice to see an open attitude on their part.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That the company promotes itself as conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientists? Nice to see an open attitude on their part.

No; that among fact-checking sites, reputable science organisations, and science forumites, it had a poor reputation, to put it mildly.

Make of that what you will - maybe they all have the wrong idea, or maybe they're all part of a conspiracy to hide the truth... Readers can draw their own conclusions. DYOR.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

The company that owns that site, whose director is a school teacher who claims CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, has a reputation as promoting conspiracies and pseudoscience (including anti-vax propaganda).

Just sayin'.

Firstly, your response is a logical fallacy known as the Genetic Fallacy. This type of fallacious argument can be summarised as 'You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.'

Secondly, your response totally failed to address the content of the URL I posted. Bearing in mind that the URL consists of a report on court proceedings, I predict that you will struggle to make a good counter argument. Although you are of course very welcome to try, and I very much encourage you to do so. Here it is again for you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Firstly, your response is a logical fallacy known as the Genetic Fallacy. This type of fallacious argument can be summarised as 'You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.'

Nope, I was simply reporting what the sources I mentioned were saying. Perhaps you should read the post again.

Secondly, your response totally failed to address the content of the URL I posted. Bearing in mind that the URL consists of a report on court proceedings, I predict that you will struggle to make a good counter argument. Although you are of course very welcome to try, and I very much encourage you to do so. Here it is again for you.

I didn't address that because it's pointless and irrelevant. A legal spat between two individuals that was dismissed on technical grounds.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Nope, I was simply reporting what the sources I mentioned were saying. Perhaps you should read the post again.

Why quote and respond to my post in the first instance, if you didn't intend to respond to the article I linked to? Your initial response doesn't appear to have any purpose whatsoever, apart from demonstrating that your only counter argument resembles a Genetic Logical Fallacy.

I didn't address that because it's pointless and irrelevant. A legal spat between two individuals that was dismissed on technical grounds.

If your assessment of that article is that it was nothing more than a legal spat, then I'll not bother wasting any more time, because it's clear that you are unable to understand why refusal to release data and methods undermines the scientific process.

 

[Gene2memE]

If your assessment of that article is that it was nothing more than a legal spat, then I'll not bother wasting any more time, because it's clear that you are unable to understand why refusal to release data and methods undermines the scientific process.

Mann's lawsuit was dismissed because of delays on the side of the plaintiff. There was no judgement on whether the statements were actually defamatory or not.

PP5-6: [16]I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay
​

If you think that the PSI article about the judgement dismissing the Mann V Ball lawsuit is for people who are "genuinely interested in what is really going on with climate", I suggest you need a several things:

An education on what is, and isn't, scientific literature
An understanding of how consensus scientific understandings are arrived at
An understanding of source bias
A familiarity with the current state of global warming and climate assessments

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Mann's lawsuit was dismissed because of delays on the side of the plaintiff. There was no judgement on whether the statements were actually defamatory or not.

As I understand the situation, the plaintiff had over 8 years to produce their data and methods. I think people are right to be sceptical when the plaintiff did not do so, particularly as the so-called hockey stick chart was the poster child for climate alarmism for a good number of years.

If you think that the PSI article about the judgement dismissing the Mann V Ball lawsuit is for people who are "genuinely interested in what is really going on with climate", I suggest you need a several things:

An education on what is, and isn't, scientific literature

I have worked in academia, I have published in the peer reviewed literature many times, and I have acted as a reviewer. And that is probably a lot more than most on here can claim. From that you can deduce that I know quite a lot about the way experiments are performed, written up, assessed for scientific robustness, and finally published in scientific literature.

An understanding of how consensus scientific understandings are arrived at

Science is not done by consensus. It never has been. It never will be. Lack of consensus and opposing viewpoints is how progress is made. Good scientists are sceptical by nature. Good scientists don't look the other way when another scientist refuses to release their data and methods. Do you understand that? I have to ask, because your responses suggest that you do not.

An understanding of source bias

What, if anything, do you think was inaccurate in the article I linked to? Or are you just another one looking to employ the Genetic Logical Fallacy?

A familiarity with the current state of global warming and climate assessments

Until quite recently I used to have a lot of interest in climate science. Not any more. I've seen enough malpractice to last me for now.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why quote and respond to my post in the first instance, if you didn't intend to respond to the article I linked to? Your initial response doesn't appear to have any purpose whatsoever, apart from demonstrating that your only counter argument resembles a Genetic Logical Fallacy.

I think that information is better interpreted when given a relevant context. I can understand that you might be uncomfortable with that.

If your assessment of that article is that it was nothing more than a legal spat, then I'll not bother wasting any more time, because it's clear that you are unable to understand why refusal to release data and methods undermines the scientific process.

My view was based on the judgement, which said nothing about the substance of the case; i.e. no judgement was made on the allegations.