Science vs Global Warming

[BobRyan]

He spent a day and a half on Google to learn about Global Warming?????

Well. Guess those folks who bothered to get PhD's in earth and atmospheric sciences must feel pretty chagrinned right now!

C'mon.

From the Ice age... to the mini-ice age... to this very moment ... we see "the sun" having "an impact" on global warming.

Yet the bonkers-for-man-made-global-climate makes this statement

"Regarding the sun's connection to global warming (or lack thereof), there is much empirical data and many studies on the topic that have concluded the sun's contribution to global warming has been minimal."
Do 500 scientists refute the consensus?

We are not supposed to "question" that wild story.

There is "an elephant in your living room" sir

====================

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming - Wikipedia

This is a list (At the above link) of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. A minority are climatologists.



===================

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

"6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the Ice age... to the mini-ice age... to this very moment ... we see "the sun" having "an impact" on global warming.

Yet the bonkers-for-man-made-global-climate makes this statement

"Regarding the sun's connection to global warming (or lack thereof), there is much empirical data and many studies on the topic that have concluded the sun's contribution to global warming has been minimal."
Do 500 scientists refute the consensus?

We are not supposed to "question" that wild story.

There is "an elephant in your living room" sir

====================

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming - Wikipedia

This is a list (At the above link) of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. A minority are climatologists.



===================

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

"6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

How many of those opinions went through peer review? You can cherry pick all sorts of opinions by scientists, that does not make those claims scientific. The actual work of scientists needs to go through peer review. That is only the beginning of new ideas. The claims of climate scientists in regards to AGW have gone through the rigors of peer review.

 

[USincognito]

In a green house used in a garden,

The Greenhouse in Greenhouse gas is an analogy. Why is that so hard to understand?

The energy from the sun varies according to sunspots;

Actually there are numerous factors, but sure, let's discuss sunspots.

we are passing through a period of low sunspot activity and this is the reason for average temperatures dropping over the last few years.

This is a falsehood. Sunspot activity has been on the decline for more than a decade and we keep having top 10 warm years. Every year has been since 2000 except for 1998 which has dropped to 9th warmest. 2018 is on pace to be the 4th warmest year on record.

<<Arrhenius knew that carbon dioxide (to him, carbonic acid) absorbs infrared radiation, felt by us as a form of heat. He also knew that the Industrial Revolution’s steam engine-powered locomotives, ships, and industrial looms burned coal—lots of coal—and that burning coal produces vast quantities of carbon dioxide.>>

This quote from Science History Institute is stuffing hyperbole words into to the dead scientist's mouth.

I'm going to guess they would know more about him and his writings than you.

 

[USincognito]

Regarding the link; it explains your position or predicament to me; but to me it is new speak.

This gibberish tells me you didn't understand the link. Again, science doesn't prove anything because proofs are final and can only be found in math and logic. Science deals with the real world and must always have a potential for falsification no matter how unlikely. If a proposition has a potential for falsification then I cannot be described as "proven". Not sure why this so hard to grasp.

By scientific proposal do you mean a precursor to a theory or is proposal as far as you are prepared to go?

No, i mean any scientific proposal. From the musings of a layman about a subject to a formalized scientific theory. All of them must have the potential for falsification.

I haven't missed your point; I do not believe it; greenhouse effect is a misnomer.{snip}

That's the beauty of science and scientific fats. It doesn't care, nor is it effected by, your beliefs.

 

[USincognito]

Deleted

 

[USincognito]

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

"6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

I'm at a loss to understand why the American Enterprise Institute thinks we should care about what a
Conservation biologist
Historian and political scientist
Philosopher
and a popular press magazine
have to say about topics that have NOTHING to do with climate science.

 

[BobRyan]

How many of those opinions went through peer review? .

"More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from 2007′s groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit being held in Cancun."

400 peer reviewed papers claim global warming is a myth
Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say 'Global Warming' Is a Myth

 

[sparow]

The Greenhouse in Greenhouse gas is an analogy. Why is that so hard to understand?

Actually there are numerous factors, but sure, let's discuss sunspots.

This is a falsehood. Sunspot activity has been on the decline for more than a decade and we keep having top 10 warm years. Every year has been since 2000 except for 1998 which has dropped to 9th warmest. 2018 is on pace to be the 4th warmest year on record.

I'm going to guess they would know more about him and his writings than you.

Your greenhouse effect is a misnomer; an analogy of the effects of manmade climate change would be chicken little and the sky has fallen, is falling or will fall.

There are those who would modify the weather to use it as a weapon of war or sell it as a product.

These quotes come from a book called HOPE OF THE WICKED by Ted Flynn.

As Brzezinski (security advisor for Jimmy Carter) points out, the elite know exactly what they are doing and how to go about achieving it through control of the masses by techniques such as HAARP weather modification, a Tesla technology; source: Brzezinski, p. 13, in News watch, May/June 1998, p. 27.

High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP)

Some of the "notes" that could be played on this sinister HAARP include:
Manipulating global weather; Damaging our Eco-system; disabling electronic communications; and Altering human moods and mental states.

HAARP appears to involve Global research, and includes Russia.

 

[USincognito]

Your greenhouse effect is a misnomer; an analogy of the effects of manmade climate change would be chicken little and the sky has fallen, is falling or will fall.

There are those who would modify the weather to use it as a weapon of war or sell it as a product.

These quotes come from a book called HOPE OF THE WICKED by Ted Flynn.

As Brzezinski (security advisor for Jimmy Carter) points out, the elite know exactly what they are doing and how to go about achieving it through control of the masses by techniques such as HAARP weather modification, a Tesla technology; source: Brzezinski, p. 13, in News watch, May/June 1998, p. 27.

High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP)

Some of the "notes" that could be played on this sinister HAARP include:
Manipulating global weather; Damaging our Eco-system; disabling electronic communications; and Altering human moods and mental states.

HAARP appears to involve Global research, and includes Russia.

Oh. I see...

 

[sparow]

This gibberish tells me you didn't understand the link. Again, science doesn't prove anything because proofs are final and can only be found in math and logic. Science deals with the real world and must always have a potential for falsification no matter how unlikely. If a proposition has a potential for falsification then I cannot be described as "proven". Not sure why this so hard to grasp.



No, i mean any scientific proposal. From the musings of a layman about a subject to a formalized scientific theory. All of them must have the potential for falsification.



That's the beauty of science and scientific fats. It doesn't care, nor is it effected by, your beliefs.

That link defined science as the anti-thesis of what Newton or Einstein would have considered science to be.

A scientific theory has to follow protocols to be valid such that the theory is distinct from an idea. Your Climate change theory is never articulated and is accompanied by scientific rhetoric not science.

 

[BobRyan]

from The Benefits of High Frequency Active Auroral

"Transcript of The Benefits of High Frequency Active Auroral

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP)
Organization that Controls HAARP
HAARP is an ionospheric research program by the U.S Air Force, U.S. Navy, the University of Alaska, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Benefits of HAARP
Can be used to potentially steer away Hurricanes and other Natural Disasters..."

And of course steering away hurricanes and natural disasters is the primary mission of the Air Force and the Navy and DARPA.

Think about it - we have had more than a few months since the last major military clash needing our armed forces to blow stuff up on any kind of "scale" so what do they do during "down time"?

Answer: solve world hunger, research on how to prevent natural disasters...(As we all knew but it needs to be said now and then)

Best of all (and this point actually is true)

REMEDIATION

"Colonel John Haynes stated that were no remediation costs associated with HAARP under the bill of sale. However, workshop participants also were informed of an environmental impact statement, recently signed-off by the Secretary of the Air Force, that states that at such time that the HAARP program is terminated, all structures are to be removed, gravel pads are to be flattened out, and the entire site is to be covered in dirt and re-grassed with the local vegetation. At the meeting, a cost number of $15 million was mentioned by one official as a good starting estimate for this remediation."

 

[Subduction Zone]

"More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from 2007′s groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit being held in Cancun."

400 peer reviewed papers claim global warming is a myth
Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say 'Global Warming' Is a Myth

.That claim has been refuted. You need to do better than to use an endless series of PRATT's.

 

[USincognito]

And of course steering away hurricanes and natural disasters is the primary mission of the Air Force and the Navy and DARPA.

No it's not.

 

[BobRyan]

How many of those opinions went through peer review? .

"More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from 2007′s groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit being held in Cancun."

400 peer reviewed papers claim global warming is a myth
Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say 'Global Warming' Is a Myth

.That claim has been refuted. You need to do better than to use an endless series of PRATT's.

Someone objected??.. really??

========================

What I love about that quote from the link above is that the article starts out like this ...

"When I reported earlier this year on the 58 scientific papers published in 2017 that say global warming is a myth the greenies’ heads exploded.
Since then, that figure has risen to 400 scientific papers."

 

[Subduction Zone]

"More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from 2007′s groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit being held in Cancun."

400 peer reviewed papers claim global warming is a myth
Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say 'Global Warming' Is a Myth



Someone objected??.. really??

========================

What I love about that quote from the link above is that the article starts out like this ...

"When I reported earlier this year on the 58 scientific papers published in 2017 that say global warming is a myth the greenies’ heads exploded.
Since then, that figure has risen to 400 scientific papers."

When a person uses lying sources he looks like a liar.

See if you can find support in the peer reviewed press, not a right wing nutjob site.

 

[SpiritualBeing]

The warming in the Arctic is unlike anything on record, NOAA reports. A scientist says the pace is greater than any natural cycle

Unparalleled warmth is changing the Arctic and affecting weather in US, Europe - CNN

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The warming in the Arctic is unlike anything on record, NOAA reports. A scientist says the pace is greater than any natural cycle

Unparalleled warmth is changing the Arctic and affecting weather in US, Europe - CNN

It's now the East Antarctic, previously thought to be the most stable, that is the major concern: Huge East Antarctic Glaciers Melting, NASA Finds.

The implication is that serious problems due to global warming are not just for the next generation to worry about, but have already begun.