Science Denial

[lesliedellow]

There is no consensus. Plus, there's "global warming" on Mars.
It's all a big fat lie.

No motive for this big fat conspiracy, I suppose?

No?

Thought not.

 

[RickG]

Appeal to authority by Cook?

The Cook paper is a survey of what the published peer review literature says between 1991 and 2011. It is not opinion. It is what the published research shows.

First, Cook is not an appeal to authority, he is an actual practicing climate scientist. An appeal to authority is the misuse of a persons background presenting them as an authority in a specific area when in fact they do not posses any credentials of any such kind. The Cook et al, paper is peer reviewed and published in the journal Environmental Research

Additionally, Cook did not stop at just a review of the literature, he contacted the authors of those papers who he rated as addressing AGW and asked them to rate their own paper. The percent increased from 97.1% to 97.2%.

Again, the 97% is what the research shows. It has nothing to do with a poll or opinion of anyone.

How many of these papers were by climatologists?

100%, all published in peer review scientific journals.

 

[4x4toy]

No. Warming is only one aspect of climate change and winters are not going to go away.

Rick, are these guys in the video lying or misinformed ? What is the present CO2 compared to highest and lowest ever ? And concerning sea level, how do you figure in continental drift and subduction . Does it add over all capacity for more volume sediment/erosion run off from all continental wind and water rivers creeks and such . How does sediment run off compare to potential 100% ice melt ?

 

[KWCrazy]

No motive for this big fat conspiracy, I suppose?

Yes. Liberals want more government control. Global Warming hysteria gives them the ability to control a great deal of what people can and cannot do. It also gives corrupt Democrats the ability to money launder election funds through businesses like Solyndra by giving them millions for research; a portion of which they use to elect Democrats. This happened and nobody went to jail. Why? Because there are more corrupt "green energy" companies where they came from.
“The $1.5 trillion global ‘climate change industry’ grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal,” source

This is just once more case of the corrupt convincing the foolish to hand over their rights if exchange for protection from a non-existent threat. It's a fraud that many have elevated to a religion because they think they can "save the planet."

 

[juvenissun]

Your "hunch" is not a substitute for evidence, nore is it a proper methodology of gathering knowledge.

Better than you who has nothing.

 

[juvenissun]

How do you square your approach with the concept of Christian love as expressed, for example in the parable of the good Samaritan?

While it may be true that humanity will be able adapt there is no assurance that such is the case. And while my house will probably not burn down I still invest a small amount annually for insurance.

I don't know if you have noticed, but people moving out of Syria have generated massive problems for themselves and a degree of difficulty for those countries who have been sound enough to accept them. Is it not rather uncharitable to declare it is simply their problem?

In summary, I take it you reject John Donne's assertion "No man is an island".

You think too much.
What I said is only: don't worry about the climate change tomorrow. We may focus on the dealing of weather change today.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes. Liberals want more government control. Global Warming hysteria gives them the ability to control a great deal of what people can and cannot do.

Well, by the standards of the American right, I suppose anybody to the left of Attila the Hun counts as a liberal, but it is strange how Britain's conservative government seems to be in on the liberal conspiracy.

 

[KWCrazy]

....it is strange how Britain's conservative government seems to be in on the liberal conspiracy.

Britain's conservatives are only slightly to the right of American liberals.
Science became political in the 60's. It's been a political football ever since.

 

[The Barbarian]

You think too much.

Thinking is the bete noir of deniers.

 

[RickG]

Rick, are these guys in the video lying or misinformed ?

I have only watched the first part so far. Rather than me pointing out problems I see with it, perhaps you could as some specific questions yourself. Probably the biggest problem I saw with it, and again I only watched the first part, is that they are addressing what the political said, not what the science says. So, part of what they say is correct, and some of it is a bit misleading of the science as they are addressing the politicians comments, not the specific science. And for what its worth, no climate scientists is saying that 100% of the warming is due to anthropogenic CO2. However, they do say, and show in their research that the majority of the warming is due to CO2. As for natural sources, they have been looked at extensively, there is no natural source that can explain the amount of warming that has occurred since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

What is the present CO2 compared to highest and lowest ever ?

Over the past 3 million years it has never been as high as it is now. Also, understand that warming due to CO2 has a logarithmic effect, thus the reason the concern for a doubling of it, "climate sensitivity". A doubling of CO2 is expected to increase GAT by around 3 deg. C regardless of the concentration, that is why comparing today's CO2 levels with those in the Mesozoic error or earlier is not valid.

And concerning sea level, how do you figure in continental drift and subduction . Does it add over all capacity for more volume sediment/erosion run off from all continental wind and water rivers creeks and such . How does sediment run off compare to potential 100% ice melt ?

Back in the 1970's when I was doing research in the area (Master's Thesis: The occurrence and causes of continental glaciation), the position of the continents, ocean circulation, and orogenic processes were a major factor in affecting climate. However, keep in mind that the timeline then was on the order of tens to hundreds of millions of years. What we are seeing in the rate at which it is occurring past 150 years is unprecedented by any paleoclimate data. Yes, climate has changed in the past and it will continue to do so. The difference is that the additional CO2 going into the atmosphere through the usage of fossil fuels. We also know that the additional levels of CO2 are indeed from fossil fuels by way of atmospheric and oceanic carbon isotope ratios. As for sediment run off, that is not an issue. Ice melt is a problem but not all the ice is expected to melt, especially that of the Antarctic, where topography is the major influence, unlike the Arctic which has no topography.

 

[4x4toy]

I have only watched the first part so far. Rather than me pointing out problems I see with it, perhaps you could as some specific questions yourself. Probably the biggest problem I saw with it, and again I only watched the first part, is that they are addressing what the political said, not what the science says. So, part of what they say is correct, and some of it is a bit misleading of the science as they are addressing the politicians comments, not the specific science. And for what its worth, no climate scientists is saying that 100% of the warming is due to anthropogenic CO2. However, they do say, and show in their research that the majority of the warming is due to CO2. As for natural sources, they have been looked at extensively, there is no natural source that can explain the amount of warming that has occurred since the beginning of the industrial revolution.


Over the past 3 million years it has never been as high as it is now. Also, understand that warming due to CO2 has a logarithmic effect, thus the reason the concern for a doubling of it, "climate sensitivity". A doubling of CO2 is expected to increase GAT by around 3 deg. C regardless of the concentration, that is why comparing today's CO2 levels with those in the Mesozoic error or earlier is not valid.

Thanx for your reply Rick


Back in the 1970's when I was doing research in the area (Master's Thesis: The occurrence and causes of continental glaciation), the position of the continents, ocean circulation, and orogenic processes were a major factor in affecting climate. However, keep in mind that the timeline then was on the order of tens to hundreds of millions of years. What we are seeing in the rate at which it is occurring past 150 years is unprecedented by any paleoclimate data. Yes, climate has changed in the past and it will continue to do so. The difference is that the additional CO2 going into the atmosphere through the usage of fossil fuels. We also know that the additional levels of CO2 are indeed from fossil fuels by way of atmospheric and oceanic carbon isotope ratios. As for sediment run off, that is not an issue. Ice melt is a problem but not all the ice is expected to melt, especially that of the Antarctic, where topography is the major influence, unlike the Arctic which has no topography.

 

[4x4toy]

I have only watched the first part so far. Rather than me pointing out problems I see with it, perhaps you could as some specific questions yourself. Probably the biggest problem I saw with it, and again I only watched the first part, is that they are addressing what the political said, not what the science says. So, part of what they say is correct, and some of it is a bit misleading of the science as they are addressing the politicians comments, not the specific science. And for what its worth, no climate scientists is saying that 100% of the warming is due to anthropogenic CO2. However, they do say, and show in their research that the majority of the warming is due to CO2. As for natural sources, they have been looked at extensively, there is no natural source that can explain the amount of warming that has occurred since the beginning of the industrial revolution.


Over the past 3 million years it has never been as high as it is now. Also, understand that warming due to CO2 has a logarithmic effect, thus the reason the concern for a doubling of it, "climate sensitivity". A doubling of CO2 is expected to increase GAT by around 3 deg. C regardless of the concentration, that is why comparing today's CO2 levels with those in the Mesozoic error or earlier is not valid.





Back in the 1970's when I was doing research in the area (Master's Thesis: The occurrence and causes of continental glaciation), the position of the continents, ocean circulation, and orogenic processes were a major factor in affecting climate. However, keep in mind that the timeline then was on the order of tens to hundreds of millions of years. What we are seeing in the rate at which it is occurring past 150 years is unprecedented by any paleoclimate data. Yes, climate has changed in the past and it will continue to do so. The difference is that the additional CO2 going into the atmosphere through the usage of fossil fuels. We also know that the additional levels of CO2 are indeed from fossil fuels by way of atmospheric and oceanic carbon isotope ratios. As for sediment run off, that is not an issue. Ice melt is a problem but not all the ice is expected to melt, especially that of the Antarctic, where topography is the major influence, unlike the Arctic which has no topography.

Thanx for your reply Rick ..

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, by the standards of the American right, I suppose anybody to the left of Attila the Hun counts as a liberal, but it is strange how Britain's conservative government seems to be in on the liberal conspiracy.

To give you some idea, Ronald Reagan's idea of a fair tax rate for different brackets, has been declared "socialistic" by today's republicans. That being said, Attila got a bad rap, associating him with the extreme right. There is no evidence that he was racist at all. Indeed, many of his officers and officials were not Huns.

 

[Strathos]

AV yes no melting of the Antarctic ice cap is going to raise the ocean level one iota. Besides it is not going to happen anytime soon because GOD is a supernatural being He said He would not destroy the Earth with water like He did before with the flood. Thanks for being here AV.

It won't destroy the earth, it will just make conditions on it quite unpleasant.

 

[lesliedellow]

Britain's conservatives are only slightly to the right of American liberals.
Science became political in the 60's. It's been a political football ever since.

Like I said, American conservatives think Attila the Hun was a bit too left wing for their tastes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Better than you who has nothing.

While you have a 'hunch'. Which is also nothing.

 

[Ophiolite]

You think too much.

I'm confident no one has ever accused you of such a heinous crime.

What I said is only: don't worry about the climate change tomorrow. We may focus on the dealing of weather change today.

What you also said was:

"I am sure that human being can always respond much faster than the pace of climate changes. "
Yet you offered no evidence to support this highly questionable assertion.

"If an island in the ocean is going to be submerged in 10 years, those people live on the island can probably move out in one month."
Here you show a total disregard for the lives of the islands inhabitants, or of the impact they will have on the communities they move to, or how the poorest among them will be able to move. If your house burns down and you were fired from your job, how would you feel if your neighbours, friends and family members told you that finding somewhere to live and how to earn some money was entirely your problem. ("There's work in the next city. Why don't you start walking now?)

"Why should any body worry about anything?"
I try not to worry about things that impact my life negatively. I don't use it as an excuse to ignore the problems of others.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Better than you who has nothing.

No, a "hunch" isn't "better then nothing" either, when it comes to scientific inquiry.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, a "hunch" isn't "better then nothing" either, when it comes to scientific inquiry.

QV please: Einstein, A Hunch And Decades Of Work: How Scientists Found Gravitational Waves

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

QV please: Einstein, A Hunch And Decades Of Work: How Scientists Found Gravitational Waves

The name "Einstein" would be lost in the pages of history, if all he ever had was a "hunch".
Einstein is remembered and celebrated for what he could demonstrate. Not for whatever "hunch" he had about anything.