Global Warming Fraud? [Archive] - Page 3

Sonomamark

01-08-2008, 10:31 PM

Back after long absence, but this bears response:

...I'm suggesting in good faith some relevant and reliable authors that you should consult if you want to get up to speed on my allusions to the current state of the debate among realists and anti-realists. Ordinarily I'm only too happy to lay out, discuss, and debate these ideas, but I'm not about to waste my time doing so with someone who seems to converse in order to achieve as many "GOTCHA!" moments as he can.

Well. That's ...how shall I say? Charitable! And the ad hominem fallacy makes a lovely bouquet with the prior appeal to authority.

For the record, I'm interested in seeking truth. The only way you can tell if a claim is true is to test it, using available evidence and analysis. If it collapses under the weight of such examination and you elect to label that a "gotcha moment", well...that's not my concern.

I'm still entirely unclear about why you're posting, and I see that I'm not alone. Since you don't actually posit anything, nor repeat the positions of the (supposedly) credible figures on the topic whose names you have chosen to drop, it is a genuine mystery to me what, if any, your point is. I'm willing to be "charitable" in assuming that you have one, but people keep asking for it, and you keep coming back with something that seems to boil down to "some Very Smart People I Have Read have Very Interesting Thoughts about this which dispute or render questionable some of the comments on this thread--but I won't say what they are."

I'm not sure what kind of contribution to the search that provides, and I don't buy your argument that the problem is "this kind of forum". Others seem to be able to discuss ideas here, and though some dust may get kicked around, so do some very interesting ideas. What doesn't contribute is raw assertion supported only by a patronizing refusal to engage because it will require you to enlighten us with an "extensive technical discussion".

SM

terriann

01-08-2008, 10:38 PM

Here's an expert for you-all. I attended this presentation at the LBC last night. Was anyone else there? Watch for his return sometime this year.

Dr. Schneider is a member of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for its work on global warming with former Vice President Al Gore.
He is an expert on climate issues and a contributor to programs on NOVA, Planet Earth, Nightline, The Today Show, Good Morning America, Dateline, and the Discovery Channel.

[/color]
I've been thinking about this, and what I've decided is that everyone must have at least an intuitive notion of what an expert is, and where intuition fails, a dictionary can fill in. The harder question is, "Expert in what?" If an expert biologist studies the northward advance of European tarweed in response to global warming, does that make him an expert in global warming or an expert in plant ecology or just an expert in tarweeds or maybe an expert in something else? Or if a geologist analyzes ice cores to determine how the atmosphere changed over a period of a couple of million years, what is he an expert in? Ice? Atmospheres? Global warming? It seems to me that the study of global warming in an extremely integrative discipline, and to be an expert in it you have to know (1) the various disciplines, and (2) how they all relate to each other to affect climate. I know of only two groups of experts with this competence, (1) experts that construct mathematical models of the earth's climate, and (2) specialists in other fields that are so well-informed and mathematically inclined that they understand what the climate modelers are doing.

Frederick M. Dolan

01-09-2008, 01:51 AM

I think what's been lost in this exchange is that my original contribution to this thread was a response to d-cat's list of statements about the nature of truth (not global warming). I responded by adding a statement about the nature of truth by Nietzsche, merely in the interest of wit more than anything else; rhetorically it was the equivalent of a conversational aside. Granted, it was a response to a much earlier post and one might justly object that my timing was poor or that I was guilty of bad netiquette.

However, instead of ignoring the remark if it was in fact ill-timed, you commented on it, misreading it in the process by attributing the entire list of quotations to me rather than to d-cat and me and asserting that the fact that these were statements by philosophers rather than natural scientists means that they're not competent to speak on the topic of global warming. You then went beyond that reasonable observation to speak rather belittlingly about thinkers who are "just talkers," such as Nietzsche, and those who determine "real truths" such as the temperature of the sun.

I tried to let this go in my next post, pointing out that I was just trying to allude to the existence of a VERY different perspective on truth than those captured in d-cat's list and hoping that the thread could return to the real topic of global warming, but apparently you weren't prepared to let it go.

Up to this point I had decided to ignore the naive distinction you made between fact and value and the crude idea that facts (such as the temperature of the sun) are somehow more "real" than what you characterize as "just talk" about moral principles. But when you decided to restate these themes in your next post, I felt I had to at least alert potentially uninformed readers that what you were saying is highly controversial. You then replied that the only people who think so are "poor thinkers," and it was in response to that that I dropped the names of a few of the people I had in mind, not in order to make an argument by authority but in direct response to your charge that I was relying on "poor thinkers," supplying the names so that readers could judge for themselves.

Now you continue, criticizing me on the one hand for not saying more about what I think is wrong with the conceptions of truth you've put forward and on the other hand asking me to stick to the topic of global warming. If you are genuinely interested in learning about current theories of truth and interpretation I'd be happy to send you a bibliography. But the defensiveness with which you've approached this conversation leads me to believe that there's not much to be gained by pursuing the matter with you in this forum.

Back after long absence, but this bears response:

Well. That's ...how shall I say? Charitable! And the ad hominem fallacy makes a lovely bouquet with the prior appeal to authority.

For the record, I'm interested in seeking truth. The only way you can tell if a claim is true is to test it, using available evidence and analysis. If it collapses under the weight of such examination and you elect to label that a "gotcha moment", well...that's not my concern.

I'm still entirely unclear about why you're posting, and I see that I'm not alone. Since you don't actually posit anything, nor repeat the positions of the (supposedly) credible figures on the topic whose names you have chosen to drop, it is a genuine mystery to me what, if any, your point is. I'm willing to be "charitable" in assuming that you have one, but people keep asking for it, and you keep coming back with something that seems to boil down to "some Very Smart People I Have Read have Very Interesting Thoughts about this which dispute or render questionable some of the comments on this thread--but I won't say what they are."

I'm not sure what kind of contribution to the search that provides, and I don't buy your argument that the problem is "this kind of forum". Others seem to be able to discuss ideas here, and though some dust may get kicked around, so do some very interesting ideas. What doesn't contribute is raw assertion supported only by a patronizing refusal to engage because it will require you to enlighten us with an "extensive technical discussion".

SM

Willie Lumplump

01-09-2008, 07:35 PM

If you are genuinely interested in learning about current theories of truth and interpretation I'd be happy to send you a bibliography.I'm having a hard time myself putting my finger on just what I, and possible others, are objecting to. I'm not sure whether it's style or substance. I can imagine most wacco participants as birds in flight. Regardless of whether SonomaMark is flying to a right tree or a wrong tree, I can still see where he is and which tree he's trying to get to. To me you often seem less like a bird and more like a swarm of bees. Often I don't know where your center or edges are, I can't tell where you're going, and even after you've landed a part of you is still in the air. I'm not knowledgeable about philosophers or philosophy, so that may be a part of my problem. I might find my problem easier to handle of you'd focus more narrowly and write shorter posts with shorter sentences.

Braggi

01-10-2008, 08:53 AM

I'm having a hard time myself putting my finger on just what I, and possible others, are objecting to. [snip] To me you often seem less like a bird and more like a swarm of bees. Often I don't know where your center or edges are, I can't tell where you're going, and even after you've landed a part of you is still in the air. [snip] I might find my problem easier to handle of you'd focus more narrowly and write shorter posts with shorter sentences.

Now I'm not totally unsophisticated, I have a pretty good working vocabulary though not extensive in a scholarly sense, and I read a pretty fair amount. Mostly nonfiction and the stuff of online articles such as you'd see here. I'm a moderately fast speed reader with most of what I read.

I usually have little trouble understanding where a poster is coming from, even Mykil who tends to, shall we say, wander a bit.

With Frederick's posts I often have to take a sentence, parse it into three or four word phrases, decide what is meant by these phrases and then attempt to assemble those meanings into a whole (do these phrases work together?), and then attempt to see how that sentence fits into the paragraph it's in, etc. I'm mentally exhausted by these exercises, especially since I'm attempting to fly through the vast quantity of reading I have before me and usually at the end of a tiring day of work.

Now I understand that Frederick's primary area of expertise is "rhetoric." He is, in my experience, a unique person in that I've never even heard of an expert of rhetoric, and yet, here he is. Now let's look at a definition of rhetoric: rhetoric n. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.

Isn't it interesting how Frederick is failing with at least part of his readership here in the most basic definition of what he is a world class expert at? Weird. Yet, I find his posts compelling enough that I do read them. I'm learning to appreciate them more. I like being pushed mentally and I like learning, especially in the realm of vocabulary.

I've also noted that his latest posts are, in fact, more clear and have an easier to grasp bottom line. I don't think he's "dumbing down" his posts but I do think he's heard our requests to make them more readable. His typical audience is obviously much more sophisticated and erudite than the rabble gathered here. I appreciate his modifying his approach here if even a little.

And Frederick, don't give up on us.
You've nearly passed the initiation.
The hazing follows ...

-Jeff

nicofrog

01-15-2008, 10:39 PM

Somewhere back in the eighties,around the end of the first gulf war, when
Regis Filban or whatever his pathetic name was,was making jokes about roasting marsh mellows on the gulf oil fires,(same year as the eruption of mount Pinatubo in the Philippians, There was a govt. scientist named Adam Trombly who happened to already be doing research on the ozone layer, why it was useful etc, he began to notice differences in the readings of satellites bouncing laser or what not off the ocean to test for such things. Less ozone,simple science. He was working off and on with Bucky Fuller, not your crackpot weirdo Scientist. Bucky did the math, + %^$= global warming...The govt. was "oh no, just a ozone hole,that's what we'll say"(remember the Ozone hole!"?? you don't hear that one anymore),then Adam noticed that the plumes of smoke from the amazingly HUGE fire went into the stratosphere, "no,"said the politicians,just 50,000 ft.etc.
then Mr. Trombly found out CHLORINE causes ozone depletion(still an unmentionable well kept secret by one of the worlds largest chemical industries)After all Chlorine is INDISPENSABLE in every sewer system,and every water system in every""Developing Nation"" ah, I love that phrase! it still rolls of the tongue like a good idea, or even a benevolent Christian concept.! save this letter in case I turn up dead in a couple of days.
Mr. Trombly was promptly fired, all his publishings immediately discredited by new fresh graduate Scientists who suddenly mysteriously became top govt, meteorologists, and last I heard he was hiding somewhere near Aspen growing some good herb!
Since then Global warming has been close to as obvious as it can get reads my lips,MEGA STORMS ask someone in Honduras if they believe in global warming!,in the nineties I saw smog at mid pacific ocean clear as mud. Some people, when the news is scary,tend to leap for denial...thats ok, letum' weep, just lock the politicians in a room with "Inconvenient truth", and "The day after tomorrow" playing over and over for about a week.There was some article somewhere about a Scientist who theorized that increased tectonic shift could be part of the picture,tsunami Style.
nice day today huh? Nico

According to this PD Editorial from today, Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley is off to attend the global warming conference in Bali.
...

Orm Embar

01-17-2008, 09:28 AM

Yippee! I finally got a new password so I could post here. I have not read this thread in its entirety but I wanted to respond to those who do not see the human cause of climate change. I don't have to give you studies, I just need to remind you of simple 3rd grade science. And, no, I'm not dumbing anything down. Science can be profound in its most simplest concepts.

Remember what petroleum is: plants and animals that lived and died and became part of the ocean floor or peat bog or some such area that then transforms over 300,000 or 400,000 years from dead plants and animals, to peat, to coal, to petroleum oil.

Now remember what plants are made of (and animals too, since they are part of the food chain which begins with plants):

Plants take carbon dioxide and water, with the help of energy from the sun, and make food. Their waste product is oxygen. Here's the chemical equation:

6 H2O + 6 CO2 ----------> C6 H12 O6 + 6 O2
Most of us don't speak chemicalese, so I'll translate:

six molecules of water plus six molecules of carbon dioxide produce one molecule of sugar plus six molecules of oxygen

In this way carbon dioxide is pulled from the atmosphere and fixed in plant tissues in the form of sugar. That sugar is what allows plants to grow and what feeds our food chain.

So, regarding climate change:
Humans have taken carbon dioxide that was captured from the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago; pumped it up in the form of crude oil and burned it in a variety of ways, releasing all that trapped carbon dioxide through combustion. Coal and a variety of petroleum products have been used minimally for a few thousand years by various peoples around the world, but widespread used of petrol as a main energy source did not happen until the mid-1900s.
Check out this timeline from the Energy Information Administration website:
https://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/history/timelines/petroleum.html

So . . . in a very short period of time (about 100 years) we humans have taken carbon dioxide that was collected over some 100 million years and stored away for 300 million years (or so) and we have re-released almost all of it back into the atmosphere. (check out Oil Drum at https://www.theoildrum.com/ for more technical data on that)

Re-releasing that large amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere over such a short period of time is bound to have some effects, don't you think?

Anyway, hope that helps gives some perspective or frame the discussion in a different way for people.

Warmly,
Larkin

Orm Embar

01-19-2008, 08:48 AM

oops, make mistake in these numbers:

Remember what petroleum is: plants and animals that lived and died and became part of the ocean floor or peat bog or some such area that then transforms over 300,000 or 400,000 years from dead plants and animals, to peat, to coal, to petroleum oil.

It should read:

transforms over 300,000,000 or 400,000,000 years

We're talking hundreds of millions, not hundreds of thousands. Sorry for the mis-type.

-Larkin

mycoguy

01-19-2008, 09:31 AM

It's freezing here this morning, again--I don't know about this global warming stuff--if it's true, I wish it would warmup soon, so I can stop paying so much to heat my house.

lynn

01-20-2008, 05:40 AM

teriann....Here's an expert for you-all. I attended this presentation at the LBC last night. Was anyone else there? Watch for his return sometime this year.
Dr. Schneider is a member of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for its work on global warming with former Vice President Al Gore. He is an expert on climate issues and a contributor to programs on NOVA, Planet Earth, Nightline, The Today Show, Good Morning America, Dateline, and the Discovery Channel.
------------------

Yes, I had heard that he was going to speak...but, didn't attend...

I'm wondering two things...

Did anyone ask...."What should we consider to be the "proof" that humans are the single cause of the current slight (+- 1.0 F) increase in atmospheric temperature over a period of +- 200 years?"...(and if so, what was his answer?)...

And...Did anyone count how many showed up in those evil, carbon spewing cars, trucks and SUV's?...(I'm going to assume most people did)...

lynn

01-20-2008, 06:02 AM

mycoguy...It's freezing here this morning, again--I don't know about this global warming stuff--if it's true, I wish it would warmup soon, so I can stop paying so much to heat my house.
----------------

I assume that's why the 'man-made-global-warming' people changed their mantra to 'climate change'...It's kinda' hard to convince people to stop driving, and heating their homes because apocalyptic doom is just around the corner due to 'global warming', when icicles are hangin' all over EVERYTHING!...

I have a feeling after this winter, the people in the Midwest are going to drive as much as they can possibly afford to...In hopes the 'man-made-global-warming' people are right...

The climate has only been changing for how many billions of yrs. now?...

terriann

01-21-2008, 03:20 PM

I had a few questions, myself, before hearing Professor Schneider speak. Though I have enough of a science background that I never dismiss off-hand what well credentialed scientists have to say. (Those without industry ties--btw, I hear that Rush Limbaugh touts himself as a "climate expert"! Lol). Do you have any inkling of the caliber of work a person must be producing to even be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize? And who it is that bestows it? This is not a lightly bestowed recognition.

Well, I figure those who really want to stay in inquiry and who will look for experts who can explain it for them, will find what they seek. Those who want to stay in denial, will stay there as long as they want to. It doesn't really matter to me.

Actually, the globe, as a whole, is warming. Just as it has cyclically since the beginning of it's existence. The facts are incontrovertible and all legitimate scientists agree. The controversy is, as Lynn states, whether human activity is driving this era's heating trend, and if so, how that will make a difference for life on earth, as compared to past warming trends.

A bulk of Dr Schneider's presentation was an explanation of what the climate scientists are seeing that have led them to the conclusion that this warming cycle is fueled, in large part, by human activity. I, for one (of about 500 audience members) was convinced. Yet I came away optimistic that if we can find the collective will, we can still effect changes for the better for our planet, our home.

Aside: Calling it "climate change" might be a way to have it all make more sense to the majority off people who haven't had enough science education (a major failing of our current public education system, since government began deconstructing that a decade or so ago) to be able to understand how planetary warming could possibly be a factor in all the cold weather and unseasonal storms some regions are experiencing. The term "global warming" is, in fact, not contradictory for folks who understand the principles.

mycoguy...It's freezing here this morning, again--I don't know about this global warming stuff--if it's true, I wish it would warmup soon, so I can stop paying so much to heat my house.
----------------

I assume that's why the 'man-made-global-warming' people changed their mantra to 'climate change'...It's kinda' hard to convince people to stop driving, and heating their homes because apocalyptic doom is just around the corner due to 'global warming', when icicles are hangin' all over EVERYTHING!...

I have a feeling after this winter, the people in the Midwest are going to drive as much as they can possibly afford to...In hopes the 'man-made-global-warming' people are right...

The climate has only been changing for how many billions of yrs. now?...

lynn

01-28-2008, 05:42 AM

Larkin..."I wanted to respond to those who do not see the human cause of climate change.....Re-releasing that large amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere over such a short period of time is bound to have some effects, don't you think?"...-----------------

I don't know if anyone said on here that humans have had NO effect...The question usually is how much of an effect...And (let's repeat) many like myself are not convinced humans have that much control over climate changes, and can 'stop' climate change...I still think it's gonna' happen - period...So, I am much more concerned about other envrionmental problems...

---------------------------

Willie..."The key word here was "scientific." When discussing scientific subjects, many people hold opinions for political or psychological reasons that have nothing to do with science."

Of course...And that's what I think many of the 'man-made-global warming' people are doing...

And speaking of the 'science' and 'expert' thingy...I previously posted that link to the little 'global warming quiz'...But, maybe no-one decided to take it...

Maybe I know a teeny weeny bit...since, I scored 100 per cent on the first try (I know you'll have to take my word for it)...Darn, that 'anti-intellectualerism'...

Orm Embar

01-28-2008, 08:35 AM

Yeah, it would be too big of a leap to go for the stopping of climate change . . . I'm more of a realist than that. But we can make changes so that our great-grandchildren have LESS of a climate change to deal with and maybe a little bit of Antarctic ice left, since it looks like the Arctic ice will be gone within 50 years. I'm hoping that we can take responsibility (as a global community) for our roll in this and not just shunt it on to future generations. These future generations are our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, for goodness sakes. Why would we want to hand this legacy down to our family? Doing something, or a lot of little somethings, is much better than doing nothing.

Lessening our dependence on petroleum products can not only take a chunk out of the amount of oil we are extracting and burning (causing climate change), but it can help pave the way for future generations who will be living without cheap abundant oil. We have to start somewhere and I don't want to get paralyzed by the enormity of global warming/climate change. Yes, it's big and scary. But humans are amazingly innovative.
Why not apply the same passion that brought us the wonders of areonautical flight to this issue of needing to live in a world without cheap abundant petrol? Why wait until all the easily obtainable oil reserves are gone and pumped into our atmosphere? Why not start now?

. . . so I was walking down the street the other day . . . imagining walking down the same street and having so many others out walking too . . . and they would actually be smiling because there would be no smelly exhaust to breathe . . . and no noisy mufflers . . . our neighbors have have decently-paying jobs within biking distance and are no longer spending 15 hours a week commuting to and from work, so we get to see them and their children a lot more . . . even have each other over for dinner.

There will be many benefits that will arise from this change that we will all have to go through.
:thumbsup:

Imaginatively yours,
Larkin

[QUOTE=lynn;48360]
I don't know if anyone said on here that humans have had NO effect...The question usually is how much of an effect...And (let's repeat) many like myself are not convinced humans have that much control over climate changes, and can 'stop' climate change...I still think it's gonna' happen - period...So, I am much more concerned about other envrionmental problems...

mykil

02-01-2008, 12:02 AM

I just watched yet another global warming ice melting water rising great floods and wild weather show on the GREAT National Geographic Channel. This one put Greenland in the melting pot in around two decades with the sea levels rising 22 feet. And right behind that the South Pole with a rise of somewhere in the range of 150 feet in five decades. I think with all they are showing and the satellite photos to back this up it are going to get wet. What I am wondering is if at some point the cloud cover will cool us down enough to prevent the total melt down. I really think at this point it is are only hope, either that or a giant volcano erupting and the ash coverage cooling the climate down for a few years in order for us to get our shit together and settle this mess down. LMAO! Imagine trying to hope for a giant volcano eruption to save us all! But with all due respect, the cloud coverage that this extra water will bring in, around two hundred feet or so should really cool things down by itself yes? With all the extra cloud coverage the temp is going to fall in those areas. I am thinking this is going to save us. At some point this will level off and only bring in about one third to half of what they are expecting. No one seems to be talking about this aspect of the scenario and they should really try and account for this, unless the plan is really to scare the hell out of us all.

mykil

02-03-2008, 11:42 PM

Well yet again I watched another boring show on the NGC and this one sayz that the South Pole only holds about fifteen feet of sea rise. The one I watched the other night sayz it can raise the ocean levels 150 feet. How can these scientists be this far off? Who is right? There will be a show on next Sunday evening Feb 10 I believe that will be called six degrees. I plan on watching this one, for it looks beyond cool and extremely tolerable. Global warming and what will happen if the world’s temps raise six degrees

Zeno Swijtink

02-04-2008, 12:00 AM

A discussion of Mark Lynas's book, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet (London: Fourth Estate, 2007) is at

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=503

Each of the chapters examines what the earth might look like as we raise the planet's temperature by 1o, 2o, etc. degrees Celsius, based on what the scientific literature has to say about it.

Well yet again I watched another boring show on the NGC and this one sayz that the South Pole only holds about fifteen feet of sea rise. The one I watched the other night sayz it can raise the ocean levels 150 feet. How can these scientists be this far off? Who is right? There will be a show on next Sunday evening Feb 10 I believe that will be called six degrees. I plan on watching this one, for it looks beyond cool and extremely tolerable. Global warming and what will happen if the world’s temps raise six degrees

handy

02-20-2008, 12:43 PM

Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:55 AM

By: Phil Brennan

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.

Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.

AFP news reports icy temperatures have just swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP.

Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained missing as of Saturday.

An ongoing record-long spell of cold weather in Vietnam's northern region, which started on Jan. 14, has killed nearly 60,000 cattle, mainly bull and buffalo calves, local press reported Monday. By Feb. 17, the spell had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region, including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571 in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.

In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. And the BBC reports that a bus company's efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.

Meanwhile Athens News reports that a raging snow storm that blanketed most of Greece over the weekend and continued into the early morning hours on Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more severely-stricken prefectures were also closed.

Scores of villages, mainly on the island of Crete, and in the prefectures of Evia, Argolida, Arcadia, Lakonia, Viotia, and the Cyclades islands were snowed in.

More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.

Temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.

If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
*******************************************

I suppose this means that Saint Al will have to give back his Nobel prize. "An Incovienient Truth"? More like a "Convienient Lie". Just say no to CFR/Globalist shills.

mykil

02-20-2008, 01:10 PM

Oh WoW; I, convinced inconveniently!

Zeno Swijtink

02-20-2008, 06:11 PM

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/global-heating-atmosphere-cancer-pollution-death-whats-in-a-name/index.html?hp

February 18, 2008, 12:32 am
Global Heating, Atmosphere Cancer, Pollution Death. What's in a Name?
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

John P. Holdren, the head of Harvard's center on science and technology policy, is sick and tired of "global warming" - not just the problem, but the phrase. As the respondent to a panel on climate and the press at this year's annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston (I was on the panel), he urged the media, and scientists who talk to the press, to substitute "global climate instability" for that all-too-comfortable pair of words.

What are your suggestions for more effective ways to describe human-caused global warming?

"We've been almost anesthetized by this term," Dr. Holdren lamented. The atmospheric buildup of long-lived greenhouse gases is setting in motion centuries of shifts in climate patterns, coastlines, water resources and ecosystems, he said - hardly a transformation one would describe with a gentle word like warming. (A couple of perspectives on the broader issues we explored in this session are on the blogs of Discover magazine and the journal Nature.)

Dr. Holdren's suggestion, which he has elaborated on here, reminded me of James Lovelock's push for "global heating" as the most apt name for human-caused climate change.

James Lovelock (Credit: Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times)

When I did an interview with Dr. Lovelock in 2006, after his book "The Revenge of Gaia" was published in the United States, he explained his word preference this way: "Warming is something that's kind of cozy and comfortable. You think of a nice duvet on a cold winter's day. Heating is something you want to get away from."

After that interview, I did some Web sifting and found a site set up (but not yet built) by Simon Billinge, a physicist at Michigan State University, promoting the idea, suitably called globalheating.org. I hope he expands it.

In an email, Dr. Billinge said he'd been exploring ways to show people how the heat buildup from an increasing greenhouse effect can take time to produce significant consequences. In fact, the demonstration, described below by Dr. Billinge, may help answer the many critics of greenhouse theory on this blog who point to recent cool flutters of climate as evidence that global heating is a fantasy:

I had an undergrad non-physics major do a summer project. The basic idea was the following: educate people about the differen[ce] between heating (transfer of energy) and warming (raising the temperature) and how it pertains to global climate. The greenhouse effect affects the global energy budget (net heating of the earth), global warming and climate change [are] the response of the system to being in this non-steady-state condition and because the earth is a complicated system, we don't completely know exactly how it is going to respond.

We did an experiment where we made a video of a Bunsen burner heating… a beaker of ice and water (that was being stirred) and we plotted the temperature as a function of time. Of course, the temperature stayed constant at 0 degrees C until all the ice melted, then it started going up up up. This showed that something can be "heated" without "warming"… in fact measuring temperature is not such a great way to determine if you are in that net-heating situation or not. Oh, and by the way, a beaker of ice and water isn't such a bad model system for the earth….though there are differences.

There's one more thought about "global warming" that's worth adding here. In 2006, Seth Godin, a popular marketing expert, examined the climate communications challenge from from vantage point of a pitchman:

Is the lack of outrage because of the population's decision that this is bad science or perhaps a thoughtful reading of the existing data?

Actually, the vast majority of the population hasn't even thought about the issue. The muted reaction to our impending disaster comes down to two things:

1. the name.

Global is good.

Warm is good.

Even greenhouses are good places.

How can "global warming" be bad?

I'm not being facetious. If the problem were called "Atmosphere cancer" or "Pollution death" the entire conversation would be framed in a different way.

2. the pace and the images.

One degree every few years doesn't make good TV. Because activists have been unable to tell their story with vivid images about immediate actions, it's just human nature to avoid the issue. Why give up something we enjoy now to make an infintesimal change in something that is going to happen far in the future?

We've explored the limits of language in situations like this, but it's worth pushing on this some more. What framing or phrasing do you see capturing peoples' attention in a way that might stick?

--

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

handy

02-20-2008, 07:06 PM

Seems to boil down to whining about how "... the fearmongering isn't working! We need to come up with scarier words!!:wink:

[QUOTE=Zeno Swijtink;50472]https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/global-heating-atmosphere-cancer-pollution-death-whats-in-a-name/index.html?hp

<snip>
What are your suggestions for more effective ways to describe human-caused global warming?
<snip>
Dr. Holdren's suggestion, which he has elaborated on here, reminded me of James Lovelock's push for "global heating" as the most apt name for human-caused climate change.
<snip>
I'm not being facetious. If the problem were called "Atmosphere cancer" or "Pollution death" the entire conversation would be framed in a different way.

We've explored the limits of language in situations like this, but it's worth pushing on this some more. What framing or phrasing do you see capturing peoples' attention in a way that might stick?

-

Braggi

02-20-2008, 07:49 PM

Seems to boil down to whining about how "... the fearmongering isn't working! We need to come up with scarier words!!:wink:
...<snip><snip><snip>
-

So why are we arguing about this? As I've said here before, it's stupid to even argue this question when everything that could or should be done to combat "global heating, warming, climate change, cooling, destabilizing, ice ageing" or whatever is something we should be doing anyway for other more tangible reasons.

No need to debate climate change. We should be switching over to renewable energy anyway. We should become more efficient anyway. We should be less wasteful anyway.

-Jeff
</snip></snip></snip>

Zeno Swijtink

02-20-2008, 08:30 PM

Seems to boil down to whining about how "... the fearmongering isn't working! We need to come up with scarier words!!
-

Similar as you guys tried to unsell universal health care as "socialized healthcare"??

lynn

02-25-2008, 12:38 AM

[

braggi....So why are we arguing about this? As I've said here before, it's stupid to even argue this question when everything that could or should be done to combat "global heating, warming, climate change, cooling, destabilizing, ice ageing" or whatever is something we should be doing anyway for other more tangible reasons.
No need to debate climate change. We should be switching over to renewable energy anyway. We should become more efficient anyway. We should be less wasteful anyway.
Jeff
----------------------------

Yes...that's been my point too!...Let's change things because we want lot's of clean water to drink, good healthy food to eat, clean air to breath...A good quality of life!...

If so called 'environmentalists' around here really want to change something...get the cities to quit building for a while...Get the building codes changed so absolutely NOTHING can be built that isn't total 'eco-design, water efficient'....And stop overpopulation (good luck!)...

I do NOT want to drink my treated sh*t water...

I'm tired of hearing about 'climate change' while watching more weltands, good soil, and hillsides in extreme fire danger get paved over....
--------------

If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.

haha....:)

lynn

04-08-2008, 02:09 AM

The local 'climate protection campaign' site has a page called 'Climate Change 101'...

https://www.climateprotectioncampaign.org/background/climatechange101.php

I sent it to a science teacher who had a little fun with it...

-------------------

Who wrote this little jewel on "Climate Change 101?

It should read "Climate Change 001.

This is not written by an "Expert" on Earth's complex atmospheric physics...

I'd say it was written by the author of Dungsberry. You know, the cartoon idiot that knows all about war and politics.

You, of course, know what an "Expert" is?

Learned this in math and physics...

"X" is an unknown.

"Spert" is a drip under pressure.

Most of what we hear, smell, and read these days is written by x-sperts.

Al, as you probably know, is an x-spert on gobble warming and polar bear extinction.

As for the "farticle"...

The "balance" of GHGs in our atmosphere is not "delicate". If you don't believe check "climate change" data back over about, oh, say, the past 65 million years. Life goes on.

If Earth's "average" temperature is now 60 degrees F, it has risen about 4 degrees F in the past 30-40 years. On down in the article it states that Earth's temp has risen about 1 degree in the past 100 years, or since the "Industrial Revolution".

Now, these gobble warmers need to get together on how much temp increase has occurred. There is a big difference between 4 F and 1 F over the entire globe.

Fact is, the caves around here still maintain an annual temp of about 56 F.

Caves maintain the average annual temp of the region they are in. Bottom line is we see no increase or decrease in cave temps.

This little 101 thing says that 60 F is warm enough to support life...
Ho, ho, ho!

Support life?

This dungsberry author needs to learn some science.

Life can exist in temps above the boiling point of water 212 F.

Life can exist well below the freezing point of water 32 F or 0 C.

Life can exist in salt concentrations that are 10X that of seawater.

Life is not a delicate little "thing" that has been specially created in a "Garden of Eden". Life is dammm tough.

This dungsberry dude says that at temps of about 14 F the planet will become "uninhabitable". What?

I just gave you a few temp extremes. A temp of 14 F will be a walk in the park on a sunny afternoon for "life as we know it".

Where do these idiots come from?

Without doubt, this is part of the bunch that fed Al his nobel prize.

I'm now getting bored with this sh....

What about this crap that if atmospheric CO2 doubles by 2050 our global temps will rise from 2.3 to 7.2 F?

2.3 to 7.2 F? Dammm, I wish my statistics teacher had given me that much deviation from the norm on my final exam. I might have passed.

So, finally, since I've had a long day of trying to teach students the facts from the fiction, let us consider one more fiction...

The U.S. is already feeling more frequent and extreme weather events...

Hurricanes are up, even though they are down...

There is more rain, somewhere...

There is more snow, this year in places...

There are more weather related deaths...
(Never mind Earth's population doubles about every 15 years)

And, finally, thousands of "cattle" are being killed by weather
related phenoment annually.

Well, excuse me, I thought the increase in cattle and their ultimate death was due to human overpopulation and the demand for a McDonald's "BIG MAC"!!!

CHEERS...

thewholetruth

04-08-2008, 07:19 AM

I wonder if cavemen thought they were responsible when the Ice Age was ending and the Earth was warming back then. I wonder if it's not just the innate self-centeredness that humans have, which makes us believe we're the center of the Universe, coupled with the guilt caused by our unavoidable knowledge that we are polluting the air, land and sea on this planet which causes us to ignore the fact that the Earth has been heating up and cooling down since the beginning of time.

I just wonder about all of that.

Don

According to this PD Editorial from today, Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley is off to attend the global warming conference in Bali.

For years, Kelley, a Republican, has been doubting this problem, and was often the single vote against global climate change measures in front of the Board of Supervisors.

Kelley now says, "Global climate change is something that we all need to deal with. I've definitely shifted."

*****

https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20071206/NEWS/712060306/1043/OPINION01

EDITORIALS
Bali quest
Why is a county supervisor headed for Indonesia tonight?

As a rule, local government officials have no business attending overseas conferences. Their time -- and taxpayer dollars -- are better spent locally. That brings us to the issue of Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley, who is attending a global warming conference in Bali.

Kelley, who is flying to the conference tonight, was not always a believer in climate change. In an interview two years ago, he expressed strong doubts about the science behind global warming. But reports by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have convinced him. Kelley says, "Global climate change is something that we all need to deal with. I've definitely shifted."

Kelley's newfound conviction, coupled with the fact that he is one of the county's most prominent conservatives, could help change the minds of other climate-change skeptics. But that still leaves the question of whether it's worth public funds -- and the carbon emissions generated by his flight -- to attend a meeting halfway around the world. We wait to be convinced.

These aren't only questions for Kelley, but for many of the more than 10,000 people attending the conference, where delegates will negotiate a process to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The UN, which is hosting the event, estimates that 47,000 tons of greenhouse gas pollutants will be generated from the conference.

It might seem a contradiction for delegates to be contributing to a problem they are supposed to be solving, but by meeting face-to-face, they have an opportunity to share information and develop trust. Also, by meeting in Indonesia -- a low-lying country predicted to be severely impacted by rising oceans -- delegates get a clear picture of what's at stake unless nations act aggressively.

As to whether a Sonoma County elected official should attend, Kelley says local governments are "most able to implement the recommendations. We need to make sure they're practical and realistic."

So, junket or opportunity? Time and carbon emission measurements will be the ultimate judge, but at least Kelley has landed on the right side of the issue.
--

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Zeno Swijtink

04-08-2008, 08:00 AM

lynn

04-08-2008, 10:37 AM

..."THE WARMING WILL ACCELERATE THE WARMING
Dr. Inez Fung of the University of California at Berkeley discussed how climate change will alter the processes that store carbon in the land and the oceans, and hence accelerate climate change itself."...
Dr Fung is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at UC Berkeley, in the Department of Earth & Planetary Science. She is a Contributor to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), but also a “Scientist of the Month” in Ms. Maggie Owens’ 2nd grade class, Marin Elementary School, Albany, California. Quite a lady."...
-----------

Zeno....I think you missed don's point...(Correct me if I'm wrong Don)...He didn't say anything about 'warming' not happening...He's making the point, that so many are making - scientists included...EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGES!...Caveman, or no Caveman...Industrial Revolution, or no Industrial Revolution...

From what I gather...Currently, there is NO scientific PROOF that the current climate change is 'man-made'...
--------

And as far as Paul Kelley goes...He's your typical political opportunist...Geez...a nice little political conference in Bali, eh?...Yeah, he and whole heck of a lot of other political opportunists wouldn't have been so keen to jump on the 'global warming' bandwagon thingy if those conferences were being held in the slums of Bangladesh...

Wow!...If Paul Kelley has finally been converted...It must be true!...

Give me a freakin' break...

take care,
lynn

Zeno Swijtink

04-08-2008, 10:56 AM

..."THE WARMING WILL ACCELERATE THE WARMING
Dr. Inez Fung of the University of California at Berkeley discussed how climate change will alter the processes that store carbon in the land and the oceans, and hence accelerate climate change itself."...
Dr Fung is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at UC Berkeley, in the Department of Earth & Planetary Science. She is a Contributor to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), but also a “Scientist of the Month” in Ms. Maggie Owens’ 2nd grade class, Marin Elementary School, Albany, California. Quite a lady."...
-----------

Zeno....I think you missed don's point...(Correct me if I'm wrong Don)...He didn't say anything about 'warming' not happening...He's making the point, that so many are making - scientists included...EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGES!...Caveman, or no Caveman...Industrial Revolution, or no Industrial Revolution...

From what I gather...Currently, there is NO scientific PROOF that the current climate change is 'man-made'...

I think I understood that, and by referring to Dr Fung as a member of IPCC I indicated that.

At her lecture yesterday at SSU's Physics Department she presented her argument that the current climate change is man made.

lynn

04-08-2008, 11:08 PM

zeno....At her lecture yesterday at SSU's Physics Department she presented her argument that the current climate change is man made.

Okay...And what was her 'proof'?...

thewholetruth

04-15-2008, 07:15 AM

"Zeno....I think you missed don's point...(Correct me if I'm wrong Don)...He didn't say anything about 'warming' not happening...He's making the point, that so many are making - scientists included...EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGES!...Caveman, or no Caveman...Industrial Revolution, or no Industrial Revolution...

From what I gather...Currently, there is NO scientific PROOF that the current climate change is 'man-made'..."

You are correct, Lynn. And it looks like we're BOTH still waiting for him to post Fung's supposed "proof". I wonder what's taking him so long. Seems like if there WAS valid "proof" of Fung's contentions, Zeno would have jumped at the opportunity to shove it down our-...I mean, Zeno would have offered it up immediately. :-P :wink:

Don

..."THE WARMING WILL ACCELERATE THE WARMING
Dr. Inez Fung of the University of California at Berkeley discussed how climate change will alter the processes that store carbon in the land and the oceans, and hence accelerate climate change itself."...
Dr Fung is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at UC Berkeley, in the Department of Earth & Planetary Science. She is a Contributor to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), but also a “Scientist of the Month” in Ms. Maggie Owens’ 2nd grade class, Marin Elementary School, Albany, California. Quite a lady."...
-----------

Zeno....I think you missed don's point...(Correct me if I'm wrong Don)...He didn't say anything about 'warming' not happening...He's making the point, that so many are making - scientists included...EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGES!...Caveman, or no Caveman...Industrial Revolution, or no Industrial Revolution...

From what I gather...Currently, there is NO scientific PROOF that the current climate change is 'man-made'...
--------

And as far as Paul Kelley goes...He's your typical political opportunist...Geez...a nice little political conference in Bali, eh?...Yeah, he and whole heck of a lot of other political opportunists wouldn't have been so keen to jump on the 'global warming' bandwagon thingy if those conferences were being held in the slums of Bangladesh...

Wow!...If Paul Kelley has finally been converted...It must be true!...

Give me a freakin' break...

take care,
lynn

thewholetruth

04-15-2008, 07:17 AM

...And what was her 'proof', Zeno?...

Don

I think I understood that, and by referring to Dr Fung as a member of IPCC I indicated that.

At her lecture yesterday at SSU's Physics Department she presented her argument that the current climate change is man made.

Orm Embar

04-15-2008, 08:36 AM

...And what was her 'proof', Zeno?...

Don

Don and Lynn,

I'm curious what you mean by "proof"? Science is a form of inquiry. There is rarely any such thing as absolute knowledge.

I'm also curious why this matters enough for you to repeat the same disbelief every time new info gets posted.

Curiously yours,
Larkin

Zeno Swijtink

04-15-2008, 10:42 AM

thewholetruth

04-15-2008, 10:45 AM

Hi Larkin,

YOU ASKED: "I'm curious what you mean by "proof"?"

Respectfully, Larkin, that question seems ludicrous to me. It's not rocket science, asking someone for "proof" of their claim. When a scientist contends aNyThInG, anything at all, which they claim to be factual (in this case, that the warming we're experiencing is being caused by us), the conclusion, by any intelligent person, will be drawn by the facts that prompt them to DRAW that conclusion in the first place. There is nothing wrong (or confrontational, unreasonable, pick your description) with asking what facts they base their statement upon.

"Science is a form of inquiry."

I agree. No one disputes that. But when science CONCLUDES something, it's because they've discovered something that LEADS THEM to that conclusion. When scientists state that something is FACTUAL, it's because they've discovered FACTS which support their conclusion. I'm asking for the proof that we are responsible for global warming, because when I think back to the Ice Age, and the "global warming" that took place afterward, I have a hard time concluding that we're responsible for it this time, unless someone can prove that to me. Anything less than proof is nothing more than opinion, and opinion proves nothing.

"There is rarely any such thing as absolute knowledge."

I'm not sure this has anything to do with this thread.

"I'm also curious why this matters enough for you to repeat the same disbelief every time new info gets posted."

I repeated the request this one time (not "every time new info gets posted") because I saw that it hadn't been answered yet. I was encouraging him to answer by asking the question again.

Don

Don and Lynn,

I'm curious what you mean by "proof"? Science is a form of inquiry. There is rarely any such thing as absolute knowledge.

I'm also curious why this matters enough for you to repeat the same disbelief every time new info gets posted.

Curiously yours,
Larkin

Orm Embar

04-15-2008, 03:33 PM

For those who want some answers to your questions surrounding human-influenced climate change, I suggest you check out the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website here: https://www.ipcc.ch/

Give yourself plenty of time to read through the various reports. The summaries for policy-makers might be the best place to start.

(my first post in this thread is the simple easy answer, but the IPCC has all the research)

The problem with answering a simple question like "where is your proof?" is that the answer is incredibly multi-faceted and has taken teams of world-class scientists several years of research to come to these conclusions. I don't have the time to recreate all that I have learned so I refer you to the original sources at IPCC.

Here is a small excerpt from one of the FAQ sections, which may address some of your questions. (see below) I would then encourage you to read a good chunk of the info at he IPCC site. Their footnotes are quite informative.

See full text here: https://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.2.html

Excerpt:
"A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect the global mean temperature.
Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years."

Respectfully submitted for your reading pleasure.
-Larkin

thewholetruth

04-16-2008, 01:28 PM

Respectfully, Larkin, I have so many problems with so-called scientific conclusions. First, scientists disagree on time lines for the history of the Earth, and frankly, there is no sure-fire way to even measure time. Carbon dating? Give me a break. That's pure speculation. They have nothing with which to validate their guesswork, except for more guesswork. Some scientists disagree by millions of years differences in how long the Earth has been here, with some believing it's been thousands of years, some say tens of thousands, and some up to millions of years. There is no agreement because there is no valid yardstick with which to gauge time.

Secondly, scientists need to qualify their existence. Clearly, spending a lifetime just guessing about stuff doesn't really do much to validate a paycheck or a job. So scientists, like politicians, psychoanalysts, doctors, lawyers, and pastors have to make sure those around them know how important their work is, even if they're in a field that is based on nothing but guesswork. I consider it the biggest joke of all, Larkin, these scientists who are pretending they know what cannot be known, all puffed up about themselves and conning others into buying their guesswork b.s. It's nothing more than interesting, their conclusions, because it's nothing more than guesswork.

Case in point, from the exerpt you offered: "Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming."

Hmmm. So now stating that a LACK OF EVIDENCE is EVIDENCE? LOL Noooo. Pure conjecture.

And this: "...there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years."

Again, they're building their premise on "We don't know yet, since no evidence has been discovered".

Well then, along those theoretical lines, I can state this and all of those who buy the global warming nonsense can jump on my bandwagon, too: Men evolved from aliens from Pluto because there's no evidence that we didn't.

It's such a farce, Larkin, using a negative to prove a positive. It doesn't hold water, sir. It's so unsound and unprofessional to build a career off of nothing but speculation, like these fools who claim to be proving that we caused global warming. The truth is that they don't have enough information to even make that assessment, so all they are doing is trying to puff themselves up in order to qualify their existence as speculators...oh, I mean to qualify their existence as sCiEnTiStS. :thumbsup:

The Emperor has no clothes, Larkin. A lack of evidence doesn't prove a positive. That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

Don

For those who want some answers to your questions surrounding human-influenced climate change, I suggest you check out the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website here: https://www.ipcc.ch/

Give yourself plenty of time to read through the various reports. The summaries for policy-makers might be the best place to start.

(my first post in this thread is the simple easy answer, but the IPCC has all the research)

The problem with answering a simple question like "where is your proof?" is that the answer is incredibly multi-faceted and has taken teams of world-class scientists several years of research to come to these conclusions. I don't have the time to recreate all that I have learned so I refer you to the original sources at IPCC.

Here is a small excerpt from one of the FAQ sections, which may address some of your questions. (see below) I would then encourage you to read a good chunk of the info at he IPCC site. Their footnotes are quite informative.

See full text here: https://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.2.html

Excerpt:
"A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect the global mean temperature.
Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years."

Respectfully submitted for your reading pleasure.
-Larkin

thewholetruth

04-16-2008, 01:37 PM

Zeno, we don't even know how long the Earth has existed. There is no proof of any actual time period. It's all guesswork, sir. So not knowing what time lines actually are from the beginning of Earth's existence to the Ice Age we know about (there may have been more, but we don't know) until now is nothing more than speculation.

What this latest "global warming" hoax is all about is that it's the Concern de Jour, nothing more, and nothing less. It's the "Save the Redwoods" of the new millenium. It's something people can feel self-righteous about, and feel self-righteous indignation about, a place to vent their frustrations and pretend they are making a difference, when the truth is that no has any proof that the warming taking place isn't just a natural phenomena.

There is no proof, either way, Zeno. You can pretend it's our fault, and get up on a soapbox and preach at us all. Or you can go downtown and help feed, clothe and house the homeless, addressing a REAL problem and being part of a REAL solution.

The goats who have bought into the global warming scam are, IMO, foolish. That none of them demands proof, and instead react emotionally rather than rationally - without proof there is nothing rational about these claims - says volumes about how gullible people still are.

Like I told Larkin, the Emperor has no clothes, Zeno. Demand proof and see what you get. Nothing. There is no proof. There is only speculation.

Don

My interest in this recent conversation with you, Don, was to encourage you to go to some of these scientific lectures on climate change at Bay Area universities, not to report to you any "proof" (your words) that you seem to be looking for. At these lecture you can directly talk with the scientists that do this work.

If you could give me examples of arguments that would "prove" the case for anthropogenic global climate change we could take this conversation to the next level and I could see whether I can find arguments in the literature that provide what you are looking for; or, as the case may be, would have to point out that such proof does not even exist for many of the scientific theories that are commonly accepted.

Zeno Swijtink

04-16-2008, 02:46 PM

I was looking forward to hear from you one thing in science that you think has been proven, and you've given it to me: the existence of an Ice Age. And you say that there may have been more, but we don't know.

I disagree: the very same kind of evidence that showed us the existence of an ice age shows us the existence of at least four distinct Ice Ages (Calibrating the Isotopic Paleothermometer, Jean Jouzel, et al., Science 29 October 1999 286: 910-911).

Zeno, we don't even know how long the Earth has existed. There is no proof of any actual time period. It's all guesswork, sir. So not knowing what time lines actually are from the beginning of Earth's existence to the Ice Age we know about (there may have been more, but we don't know) until now is nothing more than speculation. (snip)

Don

theindependenteye

04-16-2008, 05:33 PM

>There is no proof, either way, Zeno.

Zeno, you're talking to a man for whom science as a mode of discovery is bogus because "scientists disagree" about whether the Earth is thousands or millions of years old (not to mention billions). I thought he was joking when he said something about cave men and dinosaurs existing at the same time, but I guess that's all guesswork. Scientists say one thing, Fred Flintstone says another.

And a man for whom, unless there's ABSOLUTE PROOF (which by his own account cannot exist) that there's a danger in some human endeavor, it's nonsense to oppose it.

I freely admit that I restrained my small children from running into the street, even though I had no absolute proof that they might be killed; that i've gone to church even though preachers disagree; and that I've actually trusted the wacko principles of aerodynamics, physics, chemistry, and a spherical Earth to get me to Europe a couple of times, even though I have friends who feel that all sensory experiences are a Veil of Illusion.

Don has described himself as a man for whom there *are* absolute values, and so I assume that these derive from sources of absolute certainty. The Bible? The Koran? The Epic of Gilgamesh? Rush Limbaugh? I'd like to know, as I'm retaining his posts as models for a character in a forthcoming play: fascinating.

These are ungenerous comments, and I'm not given to ad hominum attacks. I welcome all the divergent views expressed on various threads recently. Mayhap he's such a blazing truth-bearer that I just can't stand it. Maybe he reminds me of the used car dealer I worked for when I was a kid. But there's definitely something there that's important to understand.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Orm Embar

04-16-2008, 05:50 PM

[QUOTE=donc1955;55461]Respectfully, Larkin, I have so many problems with so-called scientific conclusions.

Warning: I'm sending this un-edited since I need to get dinner on the table! : )

Well, I still don't know what you mean by proof. What do you mean? How do you "know" that something is true?

I thought you were talking about scientific inquiry, but you still haven't read the science . . . just a little excerpt. Follow the links and read the real studies that were done. It's a lot of reading, but hey, you could do it anyway. Most of the people who discuss climate change have read at least some studies . . . not just headline news. If you're not into well-done science, then what are you in to? What "proof" are you interested in?

It sounds to me, according to how you come across in written word (I fully understand that it is easy to mis-read someone's tone and intention), that you don't want to believe that humans have had an effect on our entire planet's climate. Is that true?

If so, I can totally understand that. It is . . . oh, I don't have the right word to put here . . . awesome might be close . . .

yeah, my Webster's defines awesome as: "inspiring awe" and awe's #2 definition (archaic) is : "the power of inspiring intense fear or fearful reverence".

AND one might not feel very good about the current effects (and future effects) of climate change . . . I'm not into making people feel bad about their effects on others (including our planet). Making people feel bad is downright mean and nasty. We all have enough of our own sh*t to wade through. None of us need more dumped on the pile, so to speak.

Personally, I don't need you to understand the things that I understand. I'm also not a fear-monger running around claiming that the sky is falling. : )

I simply entered this conversation to bring in a little scientific background. (no science is not the end-all-and-be-all of everything . . . and I've seen all kinds of scientific inquiry skewed by bad methods or financial funding bias) . . . but I do believe that we can learn a lot through scientific inquiry . . . scientific methods "proved" that the world was round during a time when most humans thought it was flat, after all)

'nuf said . . . read more than the excerpt if you are interested

If not, I wish you all well.
-Larkin

Zeno Swijtink

04-16-2008, 06:27 PM

Zeno, you're talking to a man for whom science as a mode of discovery is bogus because "scientists disagree" about whether the Earth is thousands or millions of years old (not to mention billions). I thought he was joking when he said something about cave men and dinosaurs existing at the same time, but I guess that's all guesswork. Scientists say one thing, Fred Flintstone says another. (...)

It's a certain "Christian" worldview, infamously encoded in the Creation Museum (https://www.creationmuseum.org/) near Cincinnati, where "The Creation Walk opens into the Garden of Eden—the perfect world God created before sin. It shows the first man and woman living peacefully with the other creatures—including, of course, dinosaurs (https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/25/evolution-is-now-an-excuse)."

This museum review also says: "The Creation Museum goes far beyond mere science. It doesn’t elevate man’s intellect by using science to “prove” Scripture. Instead, God’s Word is placed first and human reason is last."

Maybe here is a clue what Don means by proof. Credo quia absurdum. Proof is something that happens inside you, when you try to face the Word and are Swept Away by it.

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 05:31 AM

Gosh, Zeno, you were pretty quick to play the "Slam Don Spiritually" card when Spirituality hasn't been mentioned here at all.

I understand though. Oftentimes when someone's beliefs are challenged and they haven't the facts to back them up, they start throwing rocks...which is what you've done here.

Not the fodder for intelligent dialogue, that's for sure. It's too bad, too, because for a minute I thought I had found someone interested in engaging in actual dialogue. Perhaps I should have known better by now.

Don

It's a certain "Christian" worldview, infamously encoded in the Creation Museum (https://www.creationmuseum.org/) near Cincinnati, where "The Creation Walk opens into the Garden of Eden—the perfect world God created before sin. It shows the first man and woman living peacefully with the other creatures—including, of course, dinosaurs (https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/25/evolution-is-now-an-excuse)."

This museum review also says: "The Creation Museum goes far beyond mere science. It doesn’t elevate man’s intellect by using science to “prove” Scripture. Instead, God’s Word is placed first and human reason is last."

Maybe here is a clue what Don means by proof. Credo quia absurdum. Proof is something that happens inside you, when you try to face the Word and are Swept Away by it.

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 06:03 AM

"Well, I still don't know what you mean by proof. What do you mean? How do you "know" that something is true?"

Facts and evidence, Larkin, reveal the truth, but speculative evidence does not. Eyewitnesses, videotape, photographs, fingerprints, blood on one's clothes, artifacts, historical records - hard evidence is considered factual, Larkin. That's why the age of the Earth is still a mystery. Oh, man WANTS to know. Man's EGO REALLY wants to know. But the age of the Earth and what happened way back when are things for which there is no hard evidence, nothing but speculation. It's always been fascinating to hear scientists THEORIES about the history of the Earth, but when scientists start jumping to conclusions and calling them FACTS, that's called "fraud". And when people start buying these unfounded conclusions as 'fact', then that's called "gullible".

"I thought you were talking about scientific inquiry, but you still haven't read the science . . . just a little excerpt."

A "little excerpt" that you chose carefully, because, I imagine, you thought it was a juicy piece of 'evidence' that supports your theory.

"Follow the links and read the real studies that were done. It's a lot of reading, but hey, you could do it anyway. Most of the people who discuss climate change have read at least some studies . . . not just headline news. If you're not into well-done science, then what are you in to?"

I'm into knowing the truth about life and about the things of life, and about history. I'm NOT into knowing what scientists are guessing about now. Again, scientists have to validate their own existence, and the way people tend to do that is to make their work appear important. Unfortunately, scientific work is INVESTIGATION, and when scientists start drawing inconclusive evidence "facts", then they are invalidating and discrediting the work of legitimate scientists everywhere.

"What "proof" are you interested in?"

I'm interested in what proves that WE are solely responsible for global warming, Larkin, like scientists and the tin-foil-hat crowd are insisting. I haven't seen them/you prove that global warming is directly our doing. And considering that it appears to have happened several times throughout the history of our planet, I think that BEGS the question: Where is your proof? I think any intelligent person would ask that question before they jump on the Speculative Bandwagon.

"It sounds to me, according to how you come across in written word (I fully understand that it is easy to mis-read someone's tone and intention), that you don't want to believe that humans have had an effect on our entire planet's climate. Is that true?"

No, that's not true. I can see the FACTS, Larkin: We've polluted the waters and the skies and the land. Those are facts and we have PROOF of that. But I believe that if a scientist truly believed that we're responsible for global warming, he would recognize that global warming has happened from time to time on our planet, so it is critical that he offer IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE before he make a wild claim like "We're doing it THIS time!" Any less than that (which is what we have right now: less than that) is Chicken Little, sir.

"Personally, I don't need you to understand the things that I understand."

When you say "the things that I understand", are you talking about the theories you subscribe to, or are you talking about true understanding which comes from factual evidence? I've watched people lean on their own understanding many times in my lifetime, and I've done so, as well, only to find out down the road that if not backed up by factual evidence, our supposed 'understanding' is oftentimes nothing more than novel notions.

"I'm also not a fear-monger running around claiming that the sky is falling. : )"

I never took you as such. I simply questioned what factual evidence you had to support the contention that WE have caused global warming THIS TIME.

"I simply entered this conversation to bring in a little scientific background. (no science is not the end-all-and-be-all of everything . . . and I've seen all kinds of scientific inquiry skewed by bad methods or financial funding bias) . . . but I do believe that we can learn a lot through scientific inquiry . . . "

Amen. Me, too.

"...scientific methods "proved" that the world was round during a time when most humans thought it was flat, after all)"

Science used PHYSICS to prove the world was round, using the Earth itself as hard evidence, Larkin. This global warming scare isn't that.

"'nuf said . . . read more than the excerpt if you are interested"

I will.

"If not, I wish you all well.
-Larkin"

And I, you. :wink:

Don

[quote=donc1955;55461]Respectfully, Larkin, I have so many problems with so-called scientific conclusions.

Warning: I'm sending this un-edited since I need to get dinner on the table! : )

Well, I still don't know what you mean by proof. What do you mean? How do you "know" that something is true?

I thought you were talking about scientific inquiry, but you still haven't read the science . . . just a little excerpt. Follow the links and read the real studies that were done. It's a lot of reading, but hey, you could do it anyway. Most of the people who discuss climate change have read at least some studies . . . not just headline news. If you're not into well-done science, then what are you in to? What "proof" are you interested in?

It sounds to me, according to how you come across in written word (I fully understand that it is easy to mis-read someone's tone and intention), that you don't want to believe that humans have had an effect on our entire planet's climate. Is that true?

If so, I can totally understand that. It is . . . oh, I don't have the right word to put here . . . awesome might be close . . .

yeah, my Webster's defines awesome as: "inspiring awe" and awe's #2 definition (archaic) is : "the power of inspiring intense fear or fearful reverence".

AND one might not feel very good about the current effects (and future effects) of climate change . . . I'm not into making people feel bad about their effects on others (including our planet). Making people feel bad is downright mean and nasty. We all have enough of our own sh*t to wade through. None of us need more dumped on the pile, so to speak.

Personally, I don't need you to understand the things that I understand. I'm also not a fear-monger running around claiming that the sky is falling. : )

I simply entered this conversation to bring in a little scientific background. (no science is not the end-all-and-be-all of everything . . . and I've seen all kinds of scientific inquiry skewed by bad methods or financial funding bias) . . . but I do believe that we can learn a lot through scientific inquiry . . . scientific methods "proved" that the world was round during a time when most humans thought it was flat, after all)

'nuf said . . . read more than the excerpt if you are interested

If not, I wish you all well.
-Larkin

Zeno Swijtink

04-17-2008, 06:28 AM

Yea, I see you might think it was low. But then you brought the dinosaurs in the garden - for the Bible Museum these are Spiritual Beasts - and I find it hard to overlook the poor things!

Tell me, what's your proof that the cave men ever laid eyes on the dinosaurs?

Gosh, Zeno, you were pretty quick to play the "Slam Don Spiritually" card when Spirituality hasn't been mentioned here at all.

I understand though. Oftentimes when someone's beliefs are challenged and they haven't the facts to back them up, they start throwing rocks...which is what you've done here.

Not the fodder for intelligent dialogue, that's for sure. It's too bad, too, because for a minute I thought I had found someone interested in engaging in actual dialogue. Perhaps I should have known better by now.

Don

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 06:30 AM

"Zeno, you're talking to a man for whom science as a mode of discovery is bogus..."

That's a blatant lie, Conrad. Please refrain from so blatantly misrepresenting my position. Science is EXACTLY that: a mode of discovery. That doesn't mean that speculation equals facts, sir. Far from it. I'm not just another chicken in the yard, getting all worked up because someone says the sky is falling (in this case, that WE'VE caused global warming).

"... because "scientists disagree" about whether the Earth is thousands or millions of years old (not to mention billions)."

It's a fact, Conrad. Scientists disagree. Why do they disagree? Because there is no FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support their guesswork and estimates yet. Therefore, carbon dating is totally unreliable. Why is it unreliable? Because we have nothing CONCRETE with which to measure it's accuracy. We're just making it all up, sir. Scientists are guessing how old the Earth is. That's a fact.

"Scientists say one thing, Fred Flintstone says another."

Nooo, that's not what I said. Scientists say one thing, and other scientists say another. Mocking me doesn't validate your point, Conrad. And actually, your statement is exactly backward. I'm saying that Scientists say one thing, and Fred Flintstone (that would be folks like you) agree.

"And a man for whom, unless there's ABSOLUTE PROOF (which by his own account cannot exist) that there's a danger in some human endeavor, it's nonsense to oppose it. "

Again, you take my position and grossly exaggerate it, and you think that somehow validates your contention that we've caused global warming? LOL Conrad, attacking me personally isn't making your point. It's making A point, I'll grant you that. It's making the point that you lack integrity and cannot/will not carry on an intelligent discussion with someone who is challenging your pet theories. If you have proof, Conrad, offer it up. Throwing rocks at me (like the personal insults you've posted here) aren't proof. Oh, they're proof of SOMETHING, I'll grant you that. They're proof that you don't have any evidence to support your position. THAT is why people throw rocks.

"These are ungenerous comments..."

Yes they are.

'... and I'm not given to ad hominum attacks."

Bull crap. This whole post is ad hominum attacks on me, Conrad. Now you've proven yourself to be a blatant liar, sir.

Note to self: So much for intelligent discussion with the poster who calls himself "Conrad".

Don

>There is no proof, either way, Zeno.

Zeno, you're talking to a man for whom science as a mode of discovery is bogus because "scientists disagree" about whether the Earth is thousands or millions of years old (not to mention billions). I thought he was joking when he said something about cave men and dinosaurs existing at the same time, but I guess that's all guesswork. Scientists say one thing, Fred Flintstone says another.

And a man for whom, unless there's ABSOLUTE PROOF (which by his own account cannot exist) that there's a danger in some human endeavor, it's nonsense to oppose it.

I freely admit that I restrained my small children from running into the street, even though I had no absolute proof that they might be killed; that i've gone to church even though preachers disagree; and that I've actually trusted the wacko principles of aerodynamics, physics, chemistry, and a spherical Earth to get me to Europe a couple of times, even though I have friends who feel that all sensory experiences are a Veil of Illusion.

Don has described himself as a man for whom there *are* absolute values, and so I assume that these derive from sources of absolute certainty. The Bible? The Koran? The Epic of Gilgamesh? Rush Limbaugh? I'd like to know, as I'm retaining his posts as models for a character in a forthcoming play: fascinating.

These are ungenerous comments, and I'm not given to ad hominum attacks. I welcome all the divergent views expressed on various threads recently. Mayhap he's such a blazing truth-bearer that I just can't stand it. Maybe he reminds me of the used car dealer I worked for when I was a kid. But there's definitely something there that's important to understand.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 06:34 AM

"Tell me, what's your proof that the cave men ever laid eyes on the dinosaurs?"

I said no such thing, Zeno, that I can recall. I believe it was just another ad-hominum attack on me by you or one of your buddies. Perhaps you can cut and paste or give me the post number in which I made such a comment, Zeno?

Don

Yea, I see you might think it was low. But then you brought the dinosaurs in the garden - for the Bible Museum these are Spiritual Beasts - and I find it hard to overlook the poor things!

Tell me, what's your proof that the cave men ever laid eyes on the dinosaurs?

Zeno Swijtink

04-17-2008, 06:44 AM

(...) But I believe that if a scientist truly believed that we're responsible for global warming, he would recognize that global warming has happened from time to time on our planet, so it is critical that he offer IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE before he make a wild claim like "We're doing it THIS time!" Any less than that (which is what we have right now: less than that) is Chicken Little, sir.

Don, isn't the idea that global warming has happened from time to time on our planet equally theoretical as the idea that the present climate change is primarily caused by human greenhouse gas emissions?

That global warming has happened from time to time on our planet is not supported by eyewitnesses, videotape, photographs, fingerprints, blood on one's clothes, artifacts, or historical records.

Both ideas are supported by indirect evidence that needs a lot of theory and computer programming to get linked with these conclusions.

I would have expected you to take a more broadly (pyrrhonian) skeptical stand on our ability to know about the deep past.

Zeno Swijtink

04-17-2008, 06:53 AM

In post #8 of https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20002&highlight=%2Adinosaurs%2A

you wrote that

"When I read about the threats of extinction that we're being warned about, it makes me remember the dinosaurs. That leads me to wonder what the cavemen did to cause the global warming that caused the dinosaurs' extinction."

This wondering presupposes that the cavemen could have met the dinosaurs.

Since the only people I know of who argue that, are those connected with the Bible Museum you will excuse me my bringing this up.

"Tell me, what's your proof that the cave men ever laid eyes on the dinosaurs?"

I said no such thing, Zeno, that I can recall. I believe it was just another ad-hominum attack on me by you or one of your buddies. Perhaps you can cut and paste or give me the post number in which I made such a comment, Zeno?

Don

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 07:39 AM

"Don, isn't the idea that global warming has happened from time to time on our planet equally theoretical as the idea that the present climate change is primarily caused by human greenhouse gas emissions? That global warming has happened from time to time on our planet is not supported by eyewitnesses, videotape, photographs, fingerprints, blood on one's clothes, artifacts, or historical records."

Not true, Zeno. We can dig into the Earth's crust to see THAT there were periods of freezing and warming. The Earth is it's own hard evidence of the past. We just can't see WHEN they occurred, but can only guess. So you're wrong, bro. There IS evidence of prior Ice Ages and global warming.

"Both ideas are supported by indirect evidence that needs a lot of theory and computer programming to get linked with these conclusions."

Not true. They can see by core samples of the Earth itself how, over time, there was an abundance of vegetation, and then frozen tundra, then vegation again, etc. Not theory, but actual evidence in the form of the Earth's crust. You can't get much better evidence than the Earth itself.

Don

Don, isn't the idea that global warming has happened from time to time on our planet equally theoretical as the idea that the present climate change is primarily caused by human greenhouse gas emissions?

That global warming has happened from time to time on our planet is not supported by eyewitnesses, videotape, photographs, fingerprints, blood on one's clothes, artifacts, or historical records.

Both ideas are supported by indirect evidence that needs a lot of theory and computer programming to get linked with these conclusions.

I would have expected you to take a more broadly (pyrrhonian) skeptical stand on our ability to know about the deep past.

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 07:43 AM

"Since the only people I know of who argue that, are those connected with the Bible Museum you will excuse me my bringing this up."

I WILL excuse your bringing this up, and I will excuse your inability to recognize blantant sarcasm when you see it, as well. You see, sarcastically speaking, the cave men didn't really blame themselves for global warming like you do, nor did they blame themselves for the dinosaurs extinction. The sarcastic element was also me pointing to some folks' incredible self-centeredness now, thinking we're the end-all/be-all/responsible-for-all on the planet...which we are not.

Don

In post #8 of https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20002&highlight=%2Adinosaurs%2A

you wrote that

"When I read about the threats of extinction that we're being warned about, it makes me remember the dinosaurs. That leads me to wonder what the cavemen did to cause the global warming that caused the dinosaurs' extinction."

This wondering presupposes that the cavemen could have met the dinosaurs.

Since the only people I know of who argue that, are those connected with the Bible Museum you will excuse me my bringing this up.

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 07:53 AM

What saddens me, Zeno, is the fact that I offered several other explanations regarding how things are established as "fact", yet you ignored them all, pretending not to see them because questioning them really would answer your own question, thus denying you the opportunity to post such an arrogant, condescending, personal attack on me, that you appear to have so clearly and smugly enjoyed.

For example, sir, I also said: "Science used PHYSICS to prove the world was round, using the Earth itself as hard evidence, Larkin. This global warming scare isn't that."

Did you miss that, Zeno? Or did you pretend not to see it, intentionally ignoring it so that you could feel better about the rocks you wanted to throw at someone who challenged one of your pet theories?

Just curious. Intelligent discussion is not built on ignorance, Zeno, nor on feigned ignorance. Food for thought for next time right before you hit "Submit Reply".

Don

Don, isn't the idea that global warming has happened from time to time on our planet equally theoretical as the idea that the present climate change is primarily caused by human greenhouse gas emissions?

That global warming has happened from time to time on our planet is not supported by eyewitnesses, videotape, photographs, fingerprints, blood on one's clothes, artifacts, or historical records.

Both ideas are supported by indirect evidence that needs a lot of theory and computer programming to get linked with these conclusions.

I would have expected you to take a more broadly (pyrrhonian) skeptical stand on our ability to know about the deep past.

Zeno Swijtink

04-17-2008, 08:33 AM

So how does physics show the idea that global warming has happened from time to time on our planet to be correct but has not shown that the present climate change is primarily caused by human greenhouse gas emissions?

Where lies the difference?

What saddens me, Zeno, is the fact that I offered several other explanations regarding how things are established as "fact", yet you ignored them all, pretending not to see them because questioning them really would answer your own question, thus denying you the opportunity to post such an arrogant, condescending, personal attack on me, that you appear to have so clearly and smugly enjoyed.

For example, sir, I also said: "Science used PHYSICS to prove the world was round, using the Earth itself as hard evidence, Larkin. This global warming scare isn't that."

Did you miss that, Zeno? Or did you pretend not to see it, intentionally ignoring it so that you could feel better about the rocks you wanted to throw at someone who challenged one of your pet theories?

Just curious. Intelligent discussion is not built on ignorance, Zeno, nor on feigned ignorance. Food for thought for next time right before you hit "Submit Reply".

Don

Zeno Swijtink

04-17-2008, 08:35 AM

So do you believe that the dinosaurs lived on the earth simultaneously with the cave men?

"Since the only people I know of who argue that, are those connected with the Bible Museum you will excuse me my bringing this up."

I WILL excuse your bringing this up, and I will excuse your inability to recognize blantant sarcasm when you see it, as well. You see, sarcastically speaking, the cave men didn't really blame themselves for global warming like you do, nor did they blame themselves for the dinosaurs extinction. The sarcastic element was also me pointing to some folks' incredible self-centeredness now, thinking we're the end-all/be-all/responsible-for-all on the planet...which we are not.

Don

mykil

04-17-2008, 11:06 AM

HEY; I just stopped by to see who's winning?

Zeno Swijtink

04-17-2008, 11:22 AM

HEY; I just stopped by to see who's winning?

Sorry, mykill, there are only losers here. It's like the Democratic debates.

Orm Embar

04-17-2008, 11:46 AM

HEY; I just stopped by to see who's winning?

"snort . . . snicker, snicker . . . "

We're all twisted in a tizzy this morning! I, personally, don't want to win! I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate. Come on! You could do a lot to easy my worries for my great grandchildren. A lovely deed.

-Larkin

Valley Oak

04-17-2008, 02:04 PM

I'm waiting for proof from Don that cavemen and dinosaurs lived simultaneously. What a great scientific (or religious?) discovery that would be!

Edward

"snort . . . snicker, snicker . . . "

We're all twisted in a tizzy this morning! I, personally, don't want to win! I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate. Come on! You could do a lot to easy my worries for my great grandchildren. A lovely deed.

-Larkin

Valley Oak

04-17-2008, 02:12 PM

Hey Conrad, don't knock the Flintstones. This charming stone age family did see dinosaurs. And I have always studied for my exams at Sonoma State University by watching ALL of the reruns of the series AND all of the movies. The Flintstones are a fabulous source of scientific data. I'm even thinking of starting a new church with Fred Flintstone as God. I think he'd be a lot better than what the Christians are advocating. It's either Fred or the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Edward

>There is no proof, either way, Zeno.

Zeno, you're talking to a man for whom science as a mode of discovery is bogus because "scientists disagree" about whether the Earth is thousands or millions of years old (not to mention billions). I thought he was joking when he said something about cave men and dinosaurs existing at the same time, but I guess that's all guesswork. Scientists say one thing, Fred Flintstone says another...

Peace & joy--
Conrad

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 02:32 PM

"I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate."

Larkin, one cannot prove a negative. The onus, as you very well know but seem to be feigning ignorance about, is on you.

Your claim: We are the cause of global warming.

Prove it. I cannot prove or disprove a negative, Larkin, it is literally impossible to do so. One can only prove a positive, which is what your claim is.

Respectfully, sir, a seasoned debator would know that.

Still waiting for your proof, sir.

Don

"snort . . . snicker, snicker . . . "

We're all twisted in a tizzy this morning! I, personally, don't want to win! I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate. Come on! You could do a lot to easy my worries for my great grandchildren. A lovely deed.

-Larkin

theindependenteye

04-17-2008, 02:48 PM

Hey Conrad, don't knock the Flintstones. This charming stone age family did see dinosaurs. And I have always studied for my exams at Sonoma State University by watching ALL of the reruns of the series AND all of the movies. The Flintstones are a fabulous source of scientific data. I'm even thinking of starting a new church with Fred Flintstone as God. I think he'd be a lot better than what the Christians are advocating. It's either Fred or the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Dear Edward--

I vehemently disagree with your incoherent pandering to Fred Flintstone. How can you oppose Ron Paul if you support this troglodite? The Flintstones were blatant rip-offs of The Honeymooners, and I don't see how anyone who's of an age to share the legacy of Ralph Kramden could possibly have seen Fred as anything but a deformed clone -- the missing link on the devolution to Homer Simpson. Yours is a betrayal of the American proletariat.

Tormented peace & qualified joy--
Conrad

theindependenteye

04-17-2008, 05:15 PM

>Now you've proven yourself to be a blatant liar, sir.

Donc--

I wasn't talking to you, sir. I was talking about you, sir. You've already made it clear there's no ground for discussion between us. You replied sweetly, "I understand, Conrad," which you later explained was your benevolent method of dealing with imbeciles. So I was commenting on you as a discussion topic that interests me. And I confess to being sarcastic because what I hear as your Rush Limbaugh ditto-head rhetoric has gotten on my nerves and dulled my better judgment.

In that post I wasn't addressing the subject of global warming; I was commenting on the oddity of someone dismissing scientific method as corrupt guesswork while apparently — in previous posts — embracing religious belief as if you had your right hand in Jesus' open wound. I was serious in saying that I'd like to know where you base your own absolute beliefs when you require science to present unshakeable, indisputable proofs before any concerted action whatever can be taken.

And I was being literal when I said of you, "But there's definitely something there that's important to understand." Thanks, sir, for further evidence of that. I'll go back now to being an observer.

Sincerely--
Conrad

Orm Embar

04-17-2008, 05:56 PM

[QUOTE=donc1955;55581]"I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate."

Larkin, one cannot prove a negative. The onus, as you very well know but seem to be feigning ignorance about, is on you.

Hi Don,

Actually, your logic is faulty. Some negatives are impossible to prove. Some are difficult to prove. Some negatives are easy to prove. I'll give you the benefit of starting easy:

Prove to me that:
1) Human have NOT been pumping crude oil from the Earth's crust.
2) Humans have NOT been combusting that crude oil in unprecedented amounts in the last 100 years.
3) Carbon Dioxide is NOT a product of crude oil combustion, nor a product of any crude oil derivatives.
4) Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be at the same levels they are now if humans never discovered the amazing energy potential packed in oil deposits, and never pumped or burned those reserves.
5) Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has no effect on surface temperatures of our planet.

Those should be easy. Next we can talk about methane.

Sorry, you don't get to back out of this challenge by claiming you cannot prove a negative. Do the work outlined above or actually read the reports (and original studies) I sent. Until then all you are saying is empty rhetoric.

Or confess that you don't really care . . . maybe you just want to debate and this is a touchy topic and you like using rhetoric?

And, I told you in a private email that I am not a Sir. You can discontinue the snideness.

-Larkin

Zeno Swijtink

04-17-2008, 07:56 PM

"I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate."

Larkin, one cannot prove a negative.

Don,

This is not a posting about whether one can or cannot prove a negative.

What I am curious about is my impression that you are very certain that humans have had no effect on the climate.

I even sense that you are more certain of this then I am of the opposite, that our GHG emissions have had such an effect and will even more so in the future. My sense of urgency does not so much derive from an extreme certainty, but more so from the enormity of the downside.

Am I right? Are you very certain?? And how come you are so certain if you don't have a proof (cannot have a proof)? Is it more based on a general and extreme distrust you have of the proponents of anthropogenic climate change. That they are not to be trusted, must have other motives, are trying to redo our society in their image?

I am teaching off and on a class on philosophical issues in Global Climate Change, and sometimes I have a student who comes from this direction. I am trying to understand this position from the inside out.

Zeno

lynn

04-17-2008, 09:24 PM

Larkin..."Don and Lynn,
I'm curious what you mean by "proof"? Science is a form of inquiry. There is rarely any such thing as absolute knowledge."...

Re: 'Science is a form of inquiry"...

Exactly...So, why (was) the first line on the site of the local 'climate change protection' website...

"The debate is over"...?...

I wrote the site and asked, "According to whom?"...

I never got an answer...And I think these current 'global warming is man-made' promoters are being very disingenuous...

Why are so many people and children led to assume there IS a scientific 'proof', or 'conclusion' that the current 'global warming' trend IS man-made'?...

Are people now expected to swallow Al's and the IPCC's 'conclusion's whole?

I also find it incredibly silly to even use the word 'protect' in regards to 'global climate change'...

Since the 'man-made global warming fundies' WANT people, scientists and gov'ts to swallow THEIR conculsions whole...

Then show me 'the proof'...

Zeno Swijtink

04-17-2008, 09:32 PM

Why are so many people and children led to assume there IS a scientific 'proof', or 'conclusion' that the current 'global warming' trend IS man-made'?...

Are people now expected to swallow Al's and the IPCC's 'conclusion's whole?

IPCC does not use the term 'proof'.

The way they word it is: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)."

Braggi

04-17-2008, 09:43 PM

[I]...

Since the 'man-made global warming fundies' WANT people, scientists and gov'ts to swallow THEIR conculsions whole...

Then show me 'the proof'...

Lynn, what if absolute proof was offered?
What if it was absolutely proven global warming isn't even happening?

How would your life change if one or the other were proven?

How would you recommend the rest of humankind behave itself regarding energy generation and use?

Thanks for pondering the possibilities and sharing with us.

-Jeff

lynn

04-17-2008, 10:09 PM

zeno...IPCC does not use the term 'proof'.
The way they word it is: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)."

Yes, I know zeno...THAT'S my point...That's THEIR 'conclusion'...

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 10:45 PM

"This is not a posting about whether one can or cannot prove a negative."

That was what I was asked to do, Zeno: prove a negative. I was asked to prove man ISN'T responsible for global warming. I've never made such a claim. I simply asked those who ARE making a claim to prove that man IS responsible for global warming, since that is what they are claiming.

"What I am curious about is my impression that you are very certain that humans have had no effect on the climate."

Whoa there, cowboy! LOL I've never said ANYTHING remotely close, Zeno. That is not my position or belief at all, and I've never stated that on this board or anywhere else. Please point me to a quote that you've taken to mean that. There is no question that we're polluting the atmosphere and the environment. I've just seen no proof that we're responsible for affecting the climate this time, as there have been many times which the Earth has undergone climate change, and not once in the past has Man been responsible for it.

"Am I right? Are you very certain?? And how come you are so certain if you don't have a proof (cannot have a proof)? Is it more based on a general and extreme distrust you have of the proponents of anthropogenic climate change. That they are not to be trusted, must have other motives, are trying to redo our society in their image?"

It's not as deep or complicated as you suggest, the basis for my doubt. It is simple logic: no one has offered any irrefutable proof. If we really ARE responsible for the current climate change, then I would think that the proof would have been found BEFORE the charge was made. That's how science is SUPPOSED TO work. Even Darwin wasn't so arrogant to pretend his notion was FACT, as he had no proof, so hence: the THEORY of evolution. Yet here are these modern day Chicken Littles, claiming we're responsible for global warming, and yet they cannot prove that we are, nor are they even TRYING to offer up what they consider proof. It's a theory, and frankly, I haven't done CRAP to change my life because of any other theory, including the theory of evolution, and I certainly am not going to join other chickens in the yard in a big frenzied dance over a THEORY, Zeno. *polite smile"

Surely you can understand that. Yes? No one has offered any irrefutable proof, so I can't take them seriously yet.

Don

Don,

This is not a posting about whether one can or cannot prove a negative.

What I am curious about is my impression that you are very certain that humans have had no effect on the climate.

I even sense that you are more certain of this then I am of the opposite, that our GHG emissions have had such an effect and will even more so in the future. My sense of urgency does not so much derive from an extreme certainty, but more so from the enormity of the downside.

Am I right? Are you very certain?? And how come you are so certain if you don't have a proof (cannot have a proof)? Is it more based on a general and extreme distrust you have of the proponents of anthropogenic climate change. That they are not to be trusted, must have other motives, are trying to redo our society in their image?

I am teaching off and on a class on philosophical issues in Global Climate Change, and sometimes I have a student who comes from this direction. I am trying to understand this position from the inside out.

Zeno

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 10:52 PM

"So do you believe that the dinosaurs lived on the earth simultaneously with the cave men?"

I've seen no evidence of that, Zeno. Frankly, I don't know and don't pretend to know. I really couldn't care less! And just as frankly, you don't know either. No one left any kinds of records which can substantiate or disprove such a notion. The archaelogical evidence suggests they did not, I believe. And btw, I had never heard of the Bible whateveritwas you said I subscribed to, until you posted about it here! :wink:

Don

So do you believe that the dinosaurs lived on the earth simultaneously with the cave men?

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 10:57 PM

The terms in their hypothesese which are "is very likely" and "It is likely" means they really don't know. They're pulling these conclusions out of their collective arses. That's their way of saying "We're adding up all the evidence but we do not have enough evidence to say for sure".

They don't know, sir, or they would say they do know.

I think it's likely I'll have a hit record one day soon. The truth is, I don't really know if I ever will.

Same difference.

Oh, I have evidence that leads me believe it's likely. But until I sign a contract and see the sales hit the ceiling, I really don't know.

They don't know if we're causing global warming, either.

Don

IPCC does not use the term 'proof'.

The way they word it is: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)."

Braggi

04-17-2008, 10:57 PM

... Even Darwin wasn't so arrogant to pretend his notion was FACT, as he had no proof, so hence: the THEORY of evolution. ...

What Darwin had was a mountain of evidence. Not the same as proof, but evidence points us in the direction of knowledge. An awful lot of the electronic miracles that make our computers work are based on theory. That doesn't mean it isn't real or true. What about the "cell theory?" The theory that our bodies are made up of cells. That's a fact and yet it's still called a theory.

Darwin's story does not support your arguments, Don. Quite the opposite.

Now we have so many mountains of evidence supporting evolution and almost nothing arguing against it we can work with the idea that evolution happened, is still happening, and, assuming we don't screw up the Earth completely, will continue happening as long as living things exist.

I know that to be true to the degree that my whole live is built around the notion that it is true. I work with the assumption that I'm here on this Earth to further the cause of evolution or at least to minimize human damage to the process.

I'm not very worried about Global Warming, because all the things we should be doing to reduce greenhouse gasses are things we should be doing for so many other reasons it's not worth arguing about. We need to just get on with it.

Why would anyone argue against becoming more energy efficient?

-Jeff

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 10:59 PM

"I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate."

I've never made that claim, Larkin.

Don

[quote=donc1955;55581]"I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate."

Larkin, one cannot prove a negative. The onus, as you very well know but seem to be feigning ignorance about, is on you.

Hi Don,

Actually, your logic is faulty. Some negatives are impossible to prove. Some are difficult to prove. Some negatives are easy to prove. I'll give you the benefit of starting easy:

Prove to me that:
1) Human have NOT been pumping crude oil from the Earth's crust.
2) Humans have NOT been combusting that crude oil in unprecedented amounts in the last 100 years.
3) Carbon Dioxide is NOT a product of crude oil combustion, nor a product of any crude oil derivatives.
4) Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be at the same levels they are now if humans never discovered the amazing energy potential packed in oil deposits, and never pumped or burned those reserves.
5) Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has no effect on surface temperatures of our planet.

Those should be easy. Next we can talk about methane.

Sorry, you don't get to back out of this challenge by claiming you cannot prove a negative. Do the work outlined above or actually read the reports (and original studies) I sent. Until then all you are saying is empty rhetoric.

Or confess that you don't really care . . . maybe you just want to debate and this is a touchy topic and you like using rhetoric?

And, I told you in a private email that I am not a Sir. You can discontinue the snideness.

-Larkin

thewholetruth

04-17-2008, 11:18 PM

"What Darwin had was a mountain of evidence. Not the same as proof, but evidence points us in the direction of knowledge.

Jeff, I hear you. Perhaps some folks are convinced by evidence, and others require facts.

"That's a fact and yet it's still called a theory. Darwin's story does not support your arguments, Don. Quite the opposite."

Sorry, you're incorrect, Jeff. A theory is not proven. That is what makes it a theory and not a fact. Words mean something. Neither Darwin nor anyone else on the planet has ever offered proof that man evolved from apes. Remember the missing link? It's still missing. The missing link is the PROOF that is missing from the equation, which is why it is still a "theory".

I had so much evidence that my friend Chris had stolen my sterling silver curling iron that I used as a roach clip 31 years ago that I called him a thief, demanded he return my family heirloom (inherited it from my great aunt), and banned him from my life until he returned it. I was CERTAIN, Jeff, because I had so much evidence.

3 months later I found it down in a crack in my couch. I called him and apologized, and I swore I would never draw conclusions without facts again. Had I had proof that he had stolen it would have been one thing. I only had evidence, it APPEARED conclusive, yet it wasn't conclusive, obviously.

I look at global warming the same way. If someone will prove it then I'll buy it. Otherwise, we're still just polluting the planet like we have for 100 years. Until someone offers proof, then the sky isn't really falling.

"I'm not very worried about Global Warming, because all the things we should be doing to reduce greenhouse gasses are things we should be doing for so many other reasons it's not worth arguing about. We need to just get on with it.

Why would anyone argue against becoming more energy efficient?"

And I agree with you on this, too.

Don

What Darwin had was a mountain of evidence. Not the same as proof, but evidence points us in the direction of knowledge. An awful lot of the electronic miracles that make our computers work are based on theory. That doesn't mean it isn't real or true. What about the "cell theory?" The theory that our bodies are made up of cells. That's a fact and yet it's still called a theory.

Darwin's story does not support your arguments, Don. Quite the opposite.

Now we have so many mountains of evidence supporting evolution and almost nothing arguing against it we can work with the idea that evolution happened, is still happening, and, assuming we don't screw up the Earth completely, will continue happening as long as living things exist.

I know that to be true to the degree that my whole live is built around the notion that it is true. I work with the assumption that I'm here on this Earth to further the cause of evolution or at least to minimize human damage to the process.

I'm not very worried about Global Warming, because all the things we should be doing to reduce greenhouse gasses are things we should be doing for so many other reasons it's not worth arguing about. We need to just get on with it.

Why would anyone argue against becoming more energy efficient?

-Jeff

thewholetruth

04-18-2008, 06:47 AM

What other scientists are saying. Scroll through if you're really interested. 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition calling Al Gore's 'global warming' a fraud. And do you know why so many are saying so much against the theory that we're responsible for global warming? Because there is no PROOF that we are.

There are many articles in these two web sources:

https://www.oism.org/pproject/

https://www.firesociety.com/article/24204/

Don

Don,

This is not a posting about whether one can or cannot prove a negative.

What I am curious about is my impression that you are very certain that humans have had no effect on the climate.

I even sense that you are more certain of this then I am of the opposite, that our GHG emissions have had such an effect and will even more so in the future. My sense of urgency does not so much derive from an extreme certainty, but more so from the enormity of the downside.

Am I right? Are you very certain?? And how come you are so certain if you don't have a proof (cannot have a proof)? Is it more based on a general and extreme distrust you have of the proponents of anthropogenic climate change. That they are not to be trusted, must have other motives, are trying to redo our society in their image?

I am teaching off and on a class on philosophical issues in Global Climate Change, and sometimes I have a student who comes from this direction. I am trying to understand this position from the inside out.

Zeno

Braggi

04-18-2008, 08:35 AM

... Neither Darwin nor anyone else on the planet has ever offered proof that man evolved from apes. Remember the missing link? It's still missing. The missing link is the PROOF that is missing from the equation, which is why it is still a "theory". ...

Well, Darwin never said we evolved from apes, now did he? Perhaps you should learn something about the topics you post about.

...
I had so much evidence that my friend Chris had stolen my sterling silver curling iron that I used as a roach clip 31 years ago that I called him a thief ...

You know the difference between you and Darwin in this case? Darwin knew what he was talking about. :wink:

-Jeff

Valley Oak

04-18-2008, 09:17 AM

Creationists always use a phrase similar to '...we did not come from apes...' in a very pejorative or ridiculing manner. It is traditional of creationists to do this because, among them, the idea that humans came from that lower species is laughable and absurd. But what creationists overlook, to their own detriment, is that the theory of evolution never indicated that man came from apes, which demonstrates once again creationist ignorance. Evolutionary theory says that man and ape both evolved from the same branch, independent from one another.

Edward

Well, Darwin never said we evolved from apes, now did he? Perhaps you should learn something about the topics you post about.

You know the difference between you and Darwin in this case? Darwin knew what he was talking about. :wink:

-Jeff

Orm Embar

04-18-2008, 11:05 AM

Are people now expected to swallow Al's and the IPCC's 'conclusion's whole?

Goodness, I sure hope people don't swallow anything whole. I usually like to chew first, whether it be ideas or food.

I skip the carefully crafted headlines and look to the methodology of the studies and whether or not they went through a peer review process. It's also interesting to find out who supplies the funding. You know, if I only read headlines I would never have made it to the substance of the links that Don recently posted. Whew!

Happy Friday!
-Larkin

lynn

04-18-2008, 11:14 AM

Orm Embar

04-18-2008, 11:26 AM

Excerpted from previous posts:
The terms in their hypothesese which are "is very likely" and "It is likely" means they really don't know. They're pulling these conclusions out of their collective arses. That's their way of saying "We're adding up all the evidence but we do not have enough evidence to say for sure".

I'm interested in what proves that WE are solely responsible for global warming, Larkin, like scientists and the tin-foil-hat crowd are insisting. I haven't seen them/you prove that global warming is directly our doing. And considering that it appears to have happened several times throughout the history of our planet, I think that BEGS the question: Where is your proof? I think any intelligent person would ask that question before they jump on the Speculative Bandwagon.

"It sounds to me, according to how you come across in written word (I fully understand that it is easy to mis-read someone's tone and intention), that you don't want to believe that humans have had an effect on our entire planet's climate. Is that true?"

No, that's not true. I can see the FACTS, Larkin: We've polluted the waters and the skies and the land. Those are facts and we have PROOF of that. But I believe that if a scientist truly believed that we're responsible for global warming, he would recognize that global warming has happened from time to time on our planet, so it is critical that he offer IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE before he make a wild claim like "We're doing it THIS time!" Any less than that (which is what we have right now: less than that) is Chicken Little, sir.

I simply questioned what factual evidence you had to support the contention that WE have caused global warming THIS TIME.

Science used PHYSICS to prove the world was round, using the Earth itself as hard evidence, Larkin. This global warming scare isn't that.
Don

Hmmm . . . maybe the difficulty of this conversation is in the request for 100% IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, then the rejection of evidence that is offered since no one is claiming 100% confidence in the likelihood of human influenced climate change.

It is already acknowledged that the Earth is in a long term warming trend. The next ice age is quite a ways away, according to historical patterns.

The link to one of the IPCC's working group's FAQs was chosen in direct response to a request for physical evidence that this warming trend is different than past warming trends and also different than it would be if human causes were not a factor.

Asking for irrefutable evidence at a 100% confidence level is unrealistic and people making 100% confidence claims are often trying to sell something. So, if we cannot use scientific inquiry to answer the question of whether humans have a role in climate change, what other avenues do we have?

-Larkin

Orm Embar

04-18-2008, 11:28 AM

lynn

04-18-2008, 12:00 PM

Larkin....So, what effects do you believe that we HAVE had on our climate
----------

Personally, I would have no idea...I am not a scientist, know next to nothing about science, and have absolutely no knowledge of 'climate science' whatsoever...

But, what I do know...Is that there are those with science backgrounds stating the current 'change' is such, that it is not out of the realm of 'natural' earth cycles/changes...with or without 'us'...

Valley Oak

04-18-2008, 12:30 PM

Well, the B I B L E, of course!

Edward

...So, if we cannot use scientific inquiry to answer the question of whether humans have a role in climate change, what other avenues do we have?

-Larkin

thewholetruth

04-18-2008, 12:30 PM

"So, if we cannot use scientific inquiry to answer the question of whether humans have a role in climate change, what other avenues do we have?"

1) Stop pretending we have the answers. 2) Wait and see.

FYI, "scientific inquiry" IS the question, Larkin. Scientific inquiry is science asking a question. It isn't the answer to anything. It is the act of questioning.

Don

Hmmm . . . maybe the difficulty of this conversation is in the request for 100% IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, then the rejection of evidence that is offered since no one is claiming 100% confidence in the likelihood of human influenced climate change.

It is already acknowledged that the Earth is in a long term warming trend. The next ice age is quite a ways away, according to historical patterns.

The link to one of the IPCC's working group's FAQs was chosen in direct response to a request for physical evidence that this warming trend is different than past warming trends and also different than it would be if human causes were not a factor.

Asking for irrefutable evidence at a 100% confidence level is unrealistic and people making 100% confidence claims are often trying to sell something. So, if we cannot use scientific inquiry to answer the question of whether humans have a role in climate change, what other avenues do we have?

-Larkin

thewholetruth

04-18-2008, 12:34 PM

"Darwin knew what he was talking about. :wink:"

I'm afraid you're mistaken about that, Jeff. He was guessing, based on evidence he had gathered, but he never "knew" what he was talking about.

Does 5+9+2=16? Not when the rest of the figures haven't been tabulated. Darwin didn't have enough information to "know" what he was talking about. He had just enough information to talk about what he "thought" was true.

Don

Well, Darwin never said we evolved from apes, now did he? Perhaps you should learn something about the topics you post about.

You know the difference between you and Darwin in this case? Darwin knew what he was talking about. :wink:

-Jeff

Zeno Swijtink

04-18-2008, 03:20 PM

(...)
I look at global warming the same way. If someone will prove it then I'll buy it. Otherwise, we're still just polluting the planet like we have for 100 years. Until someone offers proof, then the sky isn't really falling. (...)

Don

Something may be true but unproven or even unprovable in your sense of the word. The sky may be falling while nobody can prove it (yet) in your sense of connecting it with fact.

The hypothesis of anthropic climate change refers to complicated, long turn processes, involving molecules like CO2 and CFCs that have a long half life in the atmosphere.

What we are looking for is weight of evidence, speaking of "likely," "very likely," etc., which is the language the IPCC uses.

The sky is very likely falling slowly now, and ever faster tomorrow, according to the IPCC. And if we wait too long no known technology can stop the sky from falling.

We don't brush aside predictions based in the theory of earthquakes but spend our money accordingly even if the theory is "just a theory," or even if the theory only assigns a 95% probability to the earthquake.

If you wait for the earthquake to happen you're too late. If you wait for the earthquake prediction to come true just so you can base your action on an observation of fact your are denying the whole role of theorizing in responsible management. Because theories can never be proven.

As a second issue, I think you draw the line between proven fact and unproven fact too sharply. You don't really know that in the case of the missing heirloom a mutual friend of Chris and you did not slip the sterling silver curling iron in the crack of your couch.

We are constantly making inferences that could be proved wrong or put to doubt by later observations. The observations themselves can be proven wrong, as being based on visual illusions, measurement errors, etc.

Or inferences could be based on a mix of fact and theory. We could find a cave painting of a cave man spearing a dinosaur. It would create a sensation among evolutionary biologists, and certainly be embraced by the Bible Museum folks as true testimony and proof of the Biblical time line. But later carbon data could expose the drawing as a hoax, and make me reject the drawing as evidence of anything. Or carbon dating could be consistent with the drawing being ancient from the time of the cave men and suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the commonly accepted time line.

Here a "theory" (carbon dating) correct an inference about facts.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell Showed that everything we know about the past is based on such theory-laden inferences:

There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.

But when you make inferences about Chris's guild or innocence you are implicitly relying on inferences that go beyond the facts as you think to know them. And you have to.

Thinking in terms of probabilities and in terms of the severity of ups and downs ("utilities") is inevitable.

santarosie

04-19-2008, 12:24 AM

Words mean something. Neither Darwin nor anyone else on the planet has ever offered proof that man evolved from apes. Remember the missing link? It's still missing. The missing link is the PROOF that is missing from the equation, which is why it is still a "theory".

The missing link has indeed been found, here is your PROOF!

thewholetruth

04-19-2008, 06:53 AM

ROTFLOL! That's too funny!

Don

The missing link has indeed been found, here is your PROOF!

phooph

04-19-2008, 10:07 AM

I have been only a lurker on this discussion but when people begin to throw around opinions on the meaning of the word 'theory' I feel a need to step in and set the record straight. The common usage of the word theory refers to a conjecture. In the scientific community it refers to a concept that is supported by a substantial body of evidence. Gravity is still 'only a theory' by scientific standards.

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity."

"What Darwin had was a mountain of evidence. Not the same as proof, but evidence points us in the direction of knowledge.

Jeff, I hear you. Perhaps some folks are convinced by evidence, and others require facts.

"That's a fact and yet it's still called a theory. Darwin's story does not support your arguments, Don. Quite the opposite."

Sorry, you're incorrect, Jeff. A theory is not proven. That is what makes it a theory and not a fact. Words mean something. Neither Darwin nor anyone else on the planet has ever offered proof that man evolved from apes. Remember the missing link? It's still missing. The missing link is the PROOF that is missing from the equation, which is why it is still a "theory".

I had so much evidence that my friend Chris had stolen my sterling silver curling iron that I used as a roach clip 31 years ago that I called him a thief, demanded he return my family heirloom (inherited it from my great aunt), and banned him from my life until he returned it. I was CERTAIN, Jeff, because I had so much evidence.

3 months later I found it down in a crack in my couch. I called him and apologized, and I swore I would never draw conclusions without facts again. Had I had proof that he had stolen it would have been one thing. I only had evidence, it APPEARED conclusive, yet it wasn't conclusive, obviously.

I look at global warming the same way. If someone will prove it then I'll buy it. Otherwise, we're still just polluting the planet like we have for 100 years. Until someone offers proof, then the sky isn't really falling.

"I'm not very worried about Global Warming, because all the things we should be doing to reduce greenhouse gasses are things we should be doing for so many other reasons it's not worth arguing about. We need to just get on with it.

Why would anyone argue against becoming more energy efficient?"

And I agree with you on this, too.

Don

thewholetruth

04-19-2008, 10:29 AM

The fact that no one can indentify specifically, but only point to the evidence of, gravity is what makes Newton's Law (oops! Not Newton's THEORY?) of Gravity but a theory.

If global warming and/or the Theory of Evolution or the Creation Theory were ever PROVEN, they would no longer be consider "theories". They would be facts.

People who consider novel notions or unproven conclusions to be the same as "facts" are simply wrong.

Don

I have been only a lurker on this discussion but when people begin to throw around opinions on the meaning of the word 'theory' I feel a need to step in and set the record straight. The common usage of the word theory refers to a conjecture. In the scientific community it refers to a concept that is supported by a substantial body of evidence. Gravity is still 'only a theory' by scientific standards.

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity."

Orm Embar

04-19-2008, 05:09 PM

The common usage of the word theory refers to a conjecture. In the scientific community it refers to a concept that is supported by a substantial body of evidence. Gravity is still 'only a theory' by scientific standards.

Thank you!
I think some confusion and conflict have arisen because some people are using scientific terms and those unfamiliar with the terms are responding as if the words were from common language.

In addition, regarding the term Theory:

" In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.
This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them."

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#cite_note-0

To further clarify another term: I used the term "Scientific Inquiry" as a scientific term, not as a mere combination of the words "scientific" and "inquiry". It does not mean "to ask a question" . . . it's meaning is more like "to ask a question and then methodically look for answers that can be duplicated consistently".

Definition:
[The National Science Education Standards (NSES p. 23) defines scientific inquiry as "the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Scientific inquiry also refers to the activities through which students develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world." ]
Reference: https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx

Hope this helps clear up any confusion about what I wrote earlier.

-Larkin

Orm Embar

04-19-2008, 05:11 PM

People who consider novel notions or unproven conclusions to be the same as "facts" are simply wrong.

Don

I'm sorry, I don't remember anyone making such claims. Which post(s) state that that "novel notions or unproven conclusions" are facts?

Orm Embar

04-19-2008, 05:19 PM

"I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate."

I've never made that claim, Larkin.
---------------------------------

Larkin...I've never come across anyone yet...Who says 'we' currently have NO effect on our planet's climate...

Then I'm unclear about what your issue is in this discussion. I know I've been annoyed with the fad of "going green" and all the pop news about climate change, but some people won't make life changes unless we push ourselves to the point of crisis. So I ignore the hype, but I don't dismiss the science.

thewholetruth

04-19-2008, 08:21 PM

Post 289 seems to be inferring that, scientifically speaking, theory is the same as fact.

It's not. Hence, the different sounds of the words (theory...fact - say them slowly, one after the other. Hear the difference?). Different sounding and different meanings, as well. :wink:

See, if theories were facts, then we wouldn't need both of those words to describe them. :-P

Don

I'm sorry, I don't remember anyone making such claims. Which post(s) state that that "novel notions or unproven conclusions" are facts?

phooph

04-19-2008, 09:40 PM

There are many theories in science that are commonly accpeted as fact. In the scientific lexicon, theory does NOT always mean conjecture or hypothesis. Atomic theory and cell theory are well established enough to be viewed as facts but are still called theories. We can see cells under a microscope and we can grow them in tissue cultures and their existance is still a theory. We can see atomic particles in a very specialized electron microscope, we can fling them around inside particle accelerators and watch their behavior, and we built a bunch of bombs and power plants based on the behavior of certain types of atoms, however their existence is still a theory. Electricity is still only a theory and we seem to be able to use it without it being declared a fact.

Some theories are unproven and may not be pan out in the end, but labeling something a theory in the scientific world does not relegate it to the realm of mythology.

Post 289 seems to be inferring that, scientifically speaking, theory is the same as fact.

It's not. Hence, the different sounds of the words (theory...fact - say them slowly, one after the other. Hear the difference?). Different sounding and different meanings, as well. :wink:

See, if theories were facts, then we wouldn't need both of those words to describe them. :-P

Don

Valley Oak

04-19-2008, 11:10 PM

I have a question. What is the difference between a 'theory' and a 'law?'

Is it the 'law of gravity', or the 'theory of gravity,' for example?

Thanks,

Edward

There are many theories in science that are commonly accpeted as fact. In the scientific lexicon, theory does NOT always mean conjecture or hypothesis. Atomic theory and cell theory are well established enough to be viewed as facts but are still called theories. We can see cells under a microscope and we can grow them in tissue cultures and their existance is still a theory. We can see atomic particles in a very specialized electron microscope, we can fling them around inside particle accelerators and watch their behavior, and we built a bunch of bombs and power plants based on the behavior of certain types of atoms, however their existence is still a theory. Electricity is still only a theory and we seem to be able to use it without it being declared a fact.

Some theories are unproven and may not be pan out in the end, but labeling something a theory in the scientific world does not relegate it to the realm of mythology.

Braggi

04-19-2008, 11:30 PM

I have a question. What is the difference between a 'theory' and a 'law?'

Is it the 'law of gravity, or the 'theory of gravity, for example?'

A nice concise explanation:

Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law
Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology

https://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law

-Jeff

thewholetruth

04-20-2008, 06:35 AM

Jeff, while I appreciate your attempt to provide clarification here about this, the article is so flawed it's pathetic. What the writer is attempting to convince us is that is now no difference between theory and law, and that is utterly ridiculous.

THEY SAY: "Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case."

Amen. And when they discover something which is true in every case, then it is called "fact". When they haven't the evidence to prove it conclusively, it is called "theory".

THEY SAY: "In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical."

LOL That's always been the case. Our Universe is no more vast now than it ever was. But facts are facts because they are PROVEN and theory is theory because it is NOT. The two words mean something, Jeff, but your writer has attempted to blur the line between their definitions. It's not working over here.

THEY SAY: "So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge."

So is the writer now saying that science has decided it can never really prove anything, Jeff? For example, take this theory that we're responsible for global warming. Using your writers logic, scientists are now telling us that despite their inability to prove we're responsible for causing it, do we now need to call their theories "facts"? In fact, (or, according to your writer, in theory, since fact and theory have now become the same thing) there is no longer any such thing as "fact". Theory has become the new "fact". Isn't that of what your writer is trying to convince us?

THEY SAY: "The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. "

Oh, I see that I'm mistaken. They aren't addressing "fact" at all. They're simply attempting to differentiate between theory and hypothesis, which are the exact same thing.

INTERESTING OBSERVATION #777: Attorneys used to present themselves as giants, huge intellectuals with far greater knowledge and power than the rest of us. Doctors used to do the same thing, due in their case to the "God Complex" they are prone to in their line of work. Pastors and Ministers also used to be revered as somehow above the rest of us, perhaps morally or perhaps generally speaking. That is, we gave people in these lines of work FAR too much credit, simply because of the line of work they are in. Today, we know there are just as many losers and idiots in these lines of work as in any other. We now know they AREN'T any better than the rest of us, and that many of them get paid WAY more than they are worth. Propping themselves up as being Devine (or closer to Devine than the rest of us)served them well. It got their salaries up and we all thought they were worth it, because we bought their self-important b.s.

Scientists are the new attorneys. They are doing everything in their power to manipulate us into believing that their "hypothesese" are as good as "facts", because they SAY so. They are really just trying to do what the others have done: Convince us that their work is so important that we'll pay them large sums of money (in grants and salaries) and let them continue to do what they love, which is investigate stuff. The problem I have with their agenda (collectively speaking) is that their manipulation has become obvious. They are trying to force feed us their theories, while pretending they are facts. They are trying to convince us that their hypothesese are as good as that which is PROVEN, which they are not. They are investigators, these scientists, and that is what they love to do. But they have crossed a line when they try to blur the line between theory and fact. The line is clear, to those who aren't already baffled by their b.s..

Don

A nice concise explanation:

Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law
Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology

https://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law

-Jeff

thewholetruth

04-20-2008, 06:57 AM

"Something may be true but unproven or even unprovable in your sense of the word. The sky may be falling while nobody can prove it (yet) in your sense of connecting it with fact."

Which renders it a "novel notion", likely perhaps (and perhaps not), but unproven.

"The hypothesis of anthropic climate change refers to complicated, long turn processes, involving molecules like CO2 and CFCs that have a long half life in the atmosphere. What we are looking for is weight of evidence, speaking of "likely," "very likely," etc., which is the language the IPCC uses."

So someone has a theory, and is enjoying investigating it. I get it.

"The sky is very likely falling slowly now, and ever faster tomorrow, according to the IPCC."

That's correct, according to the IPCC, despite their inability to prove that theory. Again, another novel notion, as yet unproven.

"And if we wait too long no known technology can stop the sky from falling."

B.S. That is conclusionary thinking which requires a huge LEAP. That is nothing more than an unfounded opinion, Zeno. In fact, THAT appears to have just been pulled out of someone's arse, as the statement itself is unsupported by any of your previous statement. That is emotionally charged opinion, nothing more. For all you know, the Earth will correct itself, because for all you know, this global warming is simply natural phenomena, the same way global warming has occurred many times before. You don't know.

"We don't brush aside predictions based in the theory of earthquakes but spend our money accordingly even if the theory is "just a theory," or even if the theory only assigns a 95% probability to the earthquake."

Yes we do. When was the last time an area was evacuated because someone claimed to know that an earthquake was about to happen? Never happened, Zeno. We don't buy theory as fact.

"You don't really know that in the case of the missing heirloom a mutual friend of Chris and you did not slip the sterling silver curling iron in the crack of your couch."

Of course it occurred to me, and bravo to you for thinking that far about it. I chose to err on the side of grace.

"Thinking in terms of probabilities and in terms of the severity of ups and downs ("utilities") is inevitable."

Granted, THINKING in those terms is inevitable, but pretending that probabilities are facts is flawed thinking. And asking the entire population of the USA to start dancing because someone THINKS we're causing global warming is called "foolishness", where I come from. Al Gore is the biggest scammer of this century, first claiming to have created the internet, and when that lie blew up in his face, turning to this THEORY and jumped on the bandwagon, taking advantage of all the fearful and gullible people who buy his b.s. Al cannot prove his case, Zeno, and at least 19,000 American scientists agree that the global warming scam is just a scam: https://www.oism.org/pproject/

19,000 American scientists call the claim that we're causing global warming a "lie", Zeno. I think that's significant.

Don

Something may be true but unproven or even unprovable in your sense of the word. The sky may be falling while nobody can prove it (yet) in your sense of connecting it with fact.

The hypothesis of anthropic climate change refers to complicated, long turn processes, involving molecules like CO2 and CFCs that have a long half life in the atmosphere.

What we are looking for is weight of evidence, speaking of "likely," "very likely," etc., which is the language the IPCC uses.

The sky is very likely falling slowly now, and ever faster tomorrow, according to the IPCC. And if we wait too long no known technology can stop the sky from falling.

We don't brush aside predictions based in the theory of earthquakes but spend our money accordingly even if the theory is "just a theory," or even if the theory only assigns a 95% probability to the earthquake.

If you wait for the earthquake to happen you're too late. If you wait for the earthquake prediction to come true just so you can base your action on an observation of fact your are denying the whole role of theorizing in responsible management. Because theories can never be proven.

As a second issue, I think you draw the line between proven fact and unproven fact too sharply. You don't really know that in the case of the missing heirloom a mutual friend of Chris and you did not slip the sterling silver curling iron in the crack of your couch.

We are constantly making inferences that could be proved wrong or put to doubt by later observations. The observations themselves can be proven wrong, as being based on visual illusions, measurement errors, etc.

Or inferences could be based on a mix of fact and theory. We could find a cave painting of a cave man spearing a dinosaur. It would create a sensation among evolutionary biologists, and certainly be embraced by the Bible Museum folks as true testimony and proof of the Biblical time line. But later carbon data could expose the drawing as a hoax, and make me reject the drawing as evidence of anything. Or carbon dating could be consistent with the drawing being ancient from the time of the cave men and suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the commonly accepted time line.

Here a "theory" (carbon dating) correct an inference about facts.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell Showed that everything we know about the past is based on such theory-laden inferences:

But when you make inferences about Chris's guild or innocence you are implicitly relying on inferences that go beyond the facts as you think to know them. And you have to.

Thinking in terms of probabilities and in terms of the severity of ups and downs ("utilities") is inevitable.