Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

There are plenty of examples to choose from...you don't need mine

Post by Lacewing » Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:29 pm

Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:03 am
Without factual examples of Trump's words, in context, then your perceptions of Trump are your own malicious fantasies.
There are countless factual examples of Trump's words and actions, in context, that have been on public display throughout his entire presidential path, which you have surely been exposed to, unless you exist in a cave and worship him in your own private darkness (which seems to be a strong possibility). Your ability to acknowledge whether you think he has at times shown ignorance and deceit is not tied to my perception. Either you've noticed for yourself that he has done these kinds of things, or you haven't.

I'm just trying to determine if people can even see the same things that are on actual display? What we make of it or how we justify it after that is our own unique spin. But can we agree on seeing it in the first place? Have you seen Trump lie (from one recorded moment to another)? Have you seen him (publicly recorded) speaking and acting in ignorant ways? No justifications are needed to simply acknowledge seeing these things.

Walker
Posts: 6846
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:31 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:21 am
Walker wrote:
How is it a man with your experience, education, and resourcefulness is a climate change denier? Do you tell the lie for a political purpose? Did you stop taking in useful information after you retired? I am not being unpleasant I don't understand. In your professional life you must have taken advantage of the experience and knowledge of carefully selected others.
How do you define, "climate change denier?"
No, I truly am interested in how an educated experienced man denies the climate emergency is now an urgent problem which can be addressed by practical measures.
Oh yes, you really should define a term you throw around, willy nilly, because I have explained the irrationality of the term, and you have ignored the explanation.

Plus:

There is no climate emergency.
There is no urgent problem concerning climate.
There are no practical measures that could be taken by hoomans that would influence the climate, and prevent it from changing.

HQ has answered your faux-urgent question of how an intelligent, experienced man thinks.

Walker
Posts: 6846
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: There are plenty of examples to choose from...you don't need mine

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:33 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:29 pm
Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:03 am
Without factual examples of Trump's words, in context, then your perceptions of Trump are your own malicious fantasies.
There are countless factual examples of Trump's words and actions, in context, that have been on public display throughout his entire presidential path, which you have surely been exposed to, unless you exist in a cave and worship him in your own private darkness (which seems to be a strong possibility). Your ability to acknowledge whether you think he has at times shown ignorance and deceit is not tied to my perception. Either you've noticed for yourself that he has done these kinds of things, or you haven't.

I'm just trying to determine if people can even see the same things that are on actual display? What we make of it or how we justify it after that is our own unique spin. But can we agree on seeing it in the first place? Have you seen Trump lie (from one recorded moment to another)? Have you seen him (publicly recorded) speaking and acting in ignorant ways? No justifications are needed to simply acknowledge seeing these things.
More feelings, no facts, no examples.

Walker
Posts: 6846
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:34 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:12 am
Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:01 am
Both words and mathematics are languages, and language is of the mind. Opposites, like contradictions, exist only in the mind.
I see!

I guess then progressive and regressive are not opposite either.
And I suppose support and opposition are not opposites either.
And neither are moron and genius.
What about encouragement and dissuasion?

So you have been supporting and encouraging the genius of the Progressive agenda all along?

You could've just said so.
Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:01 am
Simply look at the social conditions in cities run by Progressives for verification, pretty picture person.
Ever heard of cherry-picking and small sample-size fallacy?

It seems to me that the world, which is structured around stupid Progressive ideas like democracy, liberty, equality, justice etc.
Yeah... those are all terrible! I am sure Chairman Walker has better things in mind for all of us!
Judging by your comments, you only see words.

Skepdick
Posts: 1735
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Skepdick » Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:35 pm

Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:34 pm
Judging by your comments, you only see words.
That's rather ironic, since you are the one rejecting all the evidence for measured moral progress as "just language".

You've built a Strawman to your own image. Now - ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK!

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: There are plenty of examples to choose from...you don't need mine

Post by Lacewing » Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:37 pm

Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:33 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:29 pm
Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:03 am
Without factual examples of Trump's words, in context, then your perceptions of Trump are your own malicious fantasies.
There are countless factual examples of Trump's words and actions, in context, that have been on public display throughout his entire presidential path, which you have surely been exposed to, unless you exist in a cave and worship him in your own private darkness (which seems to be a strong possibility). Your ability to acknowledge whether you think he has at times shown ignorance and deceit is not tied to my perception. Either you've noticed for yourself that he has done these kinds of things, or you haven't.

I'm just trying to determine if people can even see the same things that are on actual display? What we make of it or how we justify it after that is our own unique spin. But can we agree on seeing it in the first place? Have you seen Trump lie (from one recorded moment to another)? Have you seen him (publicly recorded) speaking and acting in ignorant ways? No justifications are needed to simply acknowledge seeing these things.
More feelings, no facts, no examples.
Wow, I don't know what has happened to you...but you have become a complete jackass. Good luck with that.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: gonna keep reposting this till the alarmists comment on it

Post by Lacewing » Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:05 pm

First of all, Henry... this is a lot to ask people to read just because you think they should... and then you insult them by calling them "alarmists". This is why it's good that you have me on your ignore list... because I won't hold back in pointing out your demented games and rudeness (which you may only be partially aware of and in control of).

"Perhaps the catastrophic predictions are overblown."

Perhaps they are.

"In a modest office on the campus of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, an Israeli astrophysicist patiently explains why he is convinced that the near-unanimous judgments of climatologists are misguided. Nir Shaviv, chairman of the university’s physics department, says that his research and that of colleagues, suggests that rising CO2 levels, while hardly insignificant, play only a minor role compared to the influence of the sun and cosmic radiation on the earth’s climate."

Okay.

“Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.”

Okay, that's what he thinks and says.

"Shaviv, 47, fully comprehends that his scientific conclusions constitute a glaring rebuttal to the widely-quoted surveys showing that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity – the combustion of fossil fuels – constitutes the principle reason for climate change."

Right.

“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said.

Well, the scientists ARE part of the 97%.

“Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”

Sure.

“The proponents of man-made climate change still ignore the effect of the sun on the earth’s climate, which overturns our understanding of twentieth-century climate change.”

Okay, that's what he says. Strange to think that all other scientists would be ignoring this.

"the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge,” he said. “Which means that most of the warming comes from nature, whereas a doubling of the amount of CO2 raises temperature by only 1.0 to 1.5 degrees.  A freshman physics student can see this.”

Then all of the scientists should be able to see and consider this, too, yes?

"Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings."

Hmm.

"“Of course, I’m frustrated,” he said. “Our findings are very inconvenient for conventional wisdom” as summarized by the IPCC."

I wonder if he's considering everything, or if his findings could have some flaws?

How can we know?

What was your point, Henry? That one smart guy is speaking in a way that you prefer? Okay.

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said.  “It has repercussions for society.  It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person.  Who wants to be a sinner?”

You mean like the way some conservatives on this forum condemn who they perceive/label as liberals/progressives?

"Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said."

Well, that's unfortunate, but it could be because he's a ding dong. Just sayin'.

“Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating."

I can see that. Perhaps there would be a timeline and path established, however, for such places to be converted. I doubt that anyone (well, except maybe some Republicans) actually wants poor people to just "go away". Overall, I don't see this as a reason to avoid the development and application of renewable resources.

"The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

Things are complicated.

"Just think of the acclaim that awaits if his research -- and scientific reconsideration of the current orthodoxy -- one day proves persuasive."

Sure. Okay seriously Henry, what is the big deal you want us to discuss about this? That this guy may be right? Okay. Should we ignore all the other perspectives? I read your article... now show me the courtesy of answering these questions.

Walker
Posts: 6846
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Facts concerning the climate scam

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:19 pm

The Wall Street Journal
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By Joseph Bast And Roy Spencer

May 26, 2014 7:13 pm ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bas ... 1401145980

Begin Quote:

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findingswere published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

End Quote

Emphasis of underlining and BF added for the agenda-driven, comprehension-impaired.

Walker
Posts: 6846
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:23 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:35 pm
Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:34 pm
Judging by your comments, you only see words.
That's rather ironic, since you are the one rejecting all the evidence for measured moral progress as "just language".

You've built a Strawman to your own image. Now - ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK!
Check out the plight of cities caused by immoral Progressive governance, e.g., Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco, etc.

Walker
Posts: 6846
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: There are plenty of examples to choose from...you don't need mine

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:24 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:37 pm
Wow, I don't know what has happened to you...but you have become a complete jackass. Good luck with that.
There seems to be no end to your intellectually flabby pablum.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

If you cannot see his faults, you're living in delusion

Post by Lacewing » Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:31 pm

Walker, you’re basically saying that you cannot comment on current events or a person in the public eye unless someone spoon-feeds you questions in a particular way such that you can play games as it suits you... at least where it concerns Donald Trump. Yet you have no trouble freely commenting on all kinds of other things YOU SEE about politics and public figures. Your selective sight and truth when it comes to Trump is bizarre. How can you be such a conformist blind sheep in some man’s flock? It's the curse of a religious mindset, yes? An inability to have a mind of your own, due to a preference for aligning with grand delusion.

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: There are plenty of examples to choose from...you don't need mine

Post by seeds » Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:48 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:29 pm
Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:03 am
Without factual examples of Trump's words, in context, then your perceptions of Trump are your own malicious fantasies.
There are countless factual examples of Trump's words and actions, in context, that have been on public display throughout his entire presidential path, which you have surely been exposed to, unless you exist in a cave and worship him in your own private darkness (which seems to be a strong possibility). Your ability to acknowledge whether you think he has at times shown ignorance and deceit is not tied to my perception. Either you've noticed for yourself that he has done these kinds of things, or you haven't.

I'm just trying to determine if people can even see the same things that are on actual display? What we make of it or how we justify it after that is our own unique spin. But can we agree on seeing it in the first place? Have you seen Trump lie (from one recorded moment to another)? Have you seen him (publicly recorded) speaking and acting in ignorant ways? No justifications are needed to simply acknowledge seeing these things.
Lacewing, I suggest that what you are dealing with as you find yourself bashing your head against an impenetrable wall of someone’s inability to be reasoned with, is the result of a “low level of consciousness” that is baked into the system.

What I mean is that just as a fly cannot comprehend a frog’s level of consciousness, or how a frog cannot comprehend a dog’s level of consciousness, or how a dog cannot comprehend a human’s level of consciousness,...

...likewise, there is a similar problem within the context of the human level itself.

Now, of course, it’s not as pronounced, but it is nonetheless real.

You can see it when you examine the inability of a devout member of the KKK, for example, to comprehend the level of consciousness of the Dalai Lama (or that of a normal (non-racist) person, for that matter).

It’s kind of an alternate version of the Dunning–Kruger effect, wherein instead of one being too stupid to realize how stupid they are, in this case, they are too unconscious to realize how unconscious they are.

To be honest, we are all basically unconscious and sleepwalking through life. It’s just that some of us are more deeply asleep than others.
_______

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: There are plenty of examples to choose from...you don't need mine

Post by Lacewing » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:29 pm

seeds wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:48 pm
Lacewing, I suggest that what you are dealing with...
Thank you for your good explanation.

Yes, I find it perplexing when it appears that there is no way to reason or reach agreement with someone when talking about something that is displayed right in front of us. And although I know there is a wide range of consciousness in people, it's strange to come up against such a disparity. My personal experience has been that people from all different walks of life can tune-in with each other very easily when both are focused on that. But I guess that's a different circumstance than actually bridging differences in consciousness, which is something I don't think I've ever encountered before to such a degree.
seeds wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:48 pm
You can see it when you examine the inability of a devout member of the KKK, for example, to comprehend the level of consciousness of the Dalai Lama (or that of a normal (non-racist) person, for that matter).
Very good example.
seeds wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:48 pm
To be honest, we are all basically unconscious and sleepwalking through life.
Yes, we are! :D
seeds wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:48 pm
It’s just that some of us are more deeply asleep than others.
Sweet dreams to all!

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8172
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:13 pm

I hope all the global-warming diniers are living really close to the sea.

Image

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4973
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"I hope all the global-warming diniers are living really close to the sea."

Post by henry quirk » Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:49 am

I live in south Louisiana, within drivin' distance of the gulf.

Well before all this 'industry is reshapin' the climate!' alarmism we had hurricanes.

They're nuthin' to sneeze at, for sure, but: people haven't made 'em worse.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests