A Balanced View of Climate Change

[task0778]

Exactly. Science welcomes decent. But come prepared with studies, trials, evidence and consensus. Deniers literally never have anything to add. They just play word games.

First, it's dissent, not decent. And there is no consensus on anthropogenic causes for climate change/global warming, without proof most scientists will basically say 'maybe'. The best that the alarmists have is made up bullshit like the 97% shit that was completely debunked. And any scientist that says CC/GW has been proved has been bought and paid for to further an ideological and political agenda.

It's all projections that depend on the parameters and data that is input, which of course depends on the individuals who provide the input. Studies and evidence have been provided that challenges the supposition that anthropogenic activity is the primary cause for CC/GW. This crap has been going on for more than 30 years without substantial proof of any kind that the hysteria is founded in facts. We have not seen the hockey stick yet.

 

[Dagosa]

First, it's dissent, not decent. And there is no consensus on anthropogenic causes for climate change/global warming, without proof most scientists will basically say 'maybe'. The best that the alarmists have is made up bullshit like the 97% shit that was completely debunked. And any scientist that says CC/GW has been proved has been bought and paid for to further an ideological and political agenda.

It's all projections that depend on the parameters and data that is input, which of course depends on the individuals who provide the input. Studies and evidence have been provided that challenges the supposition that anthropogenic activity is the primary cause for CC/GW. This crap has been going on for more than 30 years without substantial proof of any kind that the hysteria is founded in facts. We have not seen the hockey stick yet.

Name one accredited institute of higher learning, one govt, one climate research facility or one climate affiliated corporation that supports your BS. Just one…..
Can we establish that YOU can’t name one ?

 

[Dagosa]

Have a great day.

Bites the dust….

 

[Dagosa]

Here's the problem:

CBS News senior weather producer David Parkinson said late May is typically a very busy time for tornadoes, but explained that climate change could be causing severe storms to occur more frequently.

"We can't in any way call one tornado something that's attached to climate change, but we can say the pattern of which things are increasing and getting stronger, that likely is related to a warming world," Parkinson said.

Which means maybe. How many trillions of dollars should we spend on 'maybe'?

You’re confused between climate and weather. So isn’t Robert.

 

[Ringo]

Greta Thunberg won Man of the Year, but no one remembered Bojan Slat, who created the Ocean Cleanup, a catamaran that can collect up to 50 tons of garbage and is also solar-powered.
Source: The Ocean Cleanup

 

[Robert W]

You’re confused between climate and weather. So isn’t Robert.

That is like saying I am confused by a box of strawberries and a basket of many times less strawberries. It makes no sense.

 

[Crick]

That is like saying I am confused by a box of strawberries and a basket of many times less strawberries. It makes no sense.

In the course of a few weeks time, wherever you live may undergo a wide range of temperatures, wind and precipitation. Can you arbitrarily pick a single instance out of those few weeks and say "THIS is the climate of this region"? No, you cannot. You have to observe weather for at least 3 months but a year or more if your location has significant seasonal variation and then average all your measurements. That is the climate of that region.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the course of a few weeks time, wherever you live may undergo a wide range of temperatures, wind and precipitation. Can you arbitrarily pick a single instance out of those few weeks and say "THIS is the climate of this region"? No, you cannot. You have to observe weather for at least 3 months but a year or more if your location has significant seasonal variation and then average all your measurements. That is the climate of that region.

To assume wide variances in climate and temperature from day to day, month to month, in three months, a year or 100 years is significant in making short or long term predictions is neither scientific nor smart. And to call something 'settled science' when their predictions come and pass and are almost always off the mark so they just keep moving the goal posts on down the road is also neither scientific nor smart. Last month and last week the temperature in Albuquerque was forecast to be near 100 today. We're going to do well to get to the mid 70's today.

 

[Robert W]

In the course of a few weeks time, wherever you live may undergo a wide range of temperatures, wind and precipitation. Can you arbitrarily pick a single instance out of those few weeks and say "THIS is the climate of this region"? No, you cannot. You have to observe weather for at least 3 months but a year or more if your location has significant seasonal variation and then average all your measurements. That is the climate of that region.

Professionals I have read comment on climate, including universities and scientists say climate is measured in 30 year time spans and not several months as you claim. They also point out that there are at least 6 controllers of climate with temperature not mentioned.

This mentions temperature with the heat of the sun being the driver.

AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

The Earth's climate is primarily driven by the sun's energy, which passes through space and hits the Earth's atmosphere. The climate system adjusts to balance the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth's surface with the amount that's reflected back into space, a process known as the radiation budget.

 

[Robert W]

To assume wide variances in climate and temperature from day to day, month to month, in three months, a year or 100 years is significant in making short or long term predictions is neither scientific nor smart. And to call something 'settled science' when their predictions come and pass and are almost always off the mark so they just keep moving the goal posts on down the road is also neither scientific nor smart. Last month and last week the temperature in Albuquerque was forecast to be near 100 today. We're going to do well to get to the mid 70's today.

We have 81 degrees in the Boise area where I live. Supposedly it will be 85 degrees F by 6 pm.

 

[Crick]

To assume wide variances in climate and temperature from day to day, month to month, in three months, a year or 100 years is significant in making short or long term predictions is neither scientific nor smart.

I never made such a suggestion. I was constructing a hypothetical in an attempt to illustrate the difference between climate and weather for Robert. His strawberry versus basket of strawberries indicate his grasp of the difference was lacking.

And to call something 'settled science' when their predictions come and pass and are almost always off the mark so they just keep moving the goal posts on down the road is also neither scientific nor smart.

No one in mainstream science is "moving the goal posts" and the AGW predictions that mainstream science has actually made have come to pass in spades. The vast majority of scientists call AGW "settled science". There are lots of subjects in natural science, mathematics, archaeology, economics, astronomy, statistics and sociology that those field's experts would term "settled science".

Last month and last week the temperature in Albuquerque was forecast to be near 100 today. We're going to do well to get to the mid 70's today.

So it looks as if you have a wide variation. My sister lived in Albuquerque for many years. Went to UNM for several years and got an MA in linguistics. Did you attend the university?

 

[Foxfyre]

I never made such a suggestion. I was constructing a hypothetical in an attempt to illustrate the difference between climate and weather for Robert. His strawberry versus basket of strawberries indicate his grasp of the difference was lacking.

No one in mainstream science is "moving the goal posts" and the AGW predictions that mainstream science has actually made have come to pass in spades. The vast majority of scientists call AGW "settled science". There are lots of subjects in natural science, mathematics, archaeology, economics, astronomy, statistics and sociology that those field's experts would term "settled science".

So it looks as if you have a wide variation. My sister lived in Albuquerque for many years. Went to UNM for several years and got an MA in linguistics. Did you attend the university?

No I went elsewhere. And I didn't read anything other than the last paragraph because I have a personal distaste for chopping up posts and destroying the context. Thanks for understanding.

 

[task0778]

The vast majority of scientists call AGW "settled science".

I do not believe that this is true. AGW is based on projections, and any scientist worth his salt does not accept projections as 'settled science'. If you can't prove it, it ain't settled. Further, earlier projections have not been accurate, not even close.

 

[Robert W]

No I went elsewhere. And I didn't read anything other than the last paragraph because I have a personal distaste for chopping up posts and destroying the context. Thanks for understanding.

He could have helped use my creative way of discussing weather and climate but he has such an ego. Amazes me he has to think like he must be GOD.

My way was accurate. Weather is the basket of Strawberries and the Climate is the huge box of strawberries. Climate is long term weather and weather is short term weather.

 

[Robert W]

How worried is Ireland about horrible warming?
Well, not much.

Will all deniers that man is not in trouble at all please watch?

 

[Foxfyre]

I do not believe that this is true. AGW is based on projections, and any scientist worth his salt does not accept projections as 'settled science'. If you can't prove it, it ain't settled. Further, earlier projections have not been accurate, not even close.

Gravity is settled science.
The speed of light is settled science.
The distance from the Earth to the moon is settled science.
That the Earth rotates around the sun instead of vice versa is settled science.
That certain acids of sufficient concentration eat metal is settled science.
The atomic weight of the basic elements is settled science.
The freezing, melting, boiling temperature of various substances in specific circumstances is settled science.
Nobody deserving of the label 'scientist' would ever say climate change is settled science when they have yet to make a single prediction or conclusion with any accuracy. Certainly in those things in which what we don't know far exceeds what we do know, there is no settled science.

 

[Robert W]

Gravity is settled science.
The speed of light is settled science.
The distance from the Earth to the moon is settled science.
That the Earth rotates around the sun instead of vice versa is settled science.
That certain acids of sufficient concentration eat metal is settled science.
The atomic weight of the basic elements is settled science.
The freezing, melting, boiling temperature of various substances in specific circumstances is settled science.
Nobody deserving of the label 'scientist' would ever say climate change is settled science when they have yet to make a single prediction or conclusion with any accuracy. Certainly in those things in which what we don't know far exceeds what we do know, there is no settled science.

And essentially they (the alleged AGW Scientists) amount to fortune tellers.

 

[Crick]

Gravity is settled science.

Hardly. While both relatavistic and classic (Newtonican) gravity are fully tested and accepted within their respective domains, the failure to date to find a quantum theory of gravity or even whether or not it is constant over time and distance, leaves the field unsettled.

The speed of light is settled science.

No. That is a measurement; an observation.

The distance from the Earth to the moon is settled science.

No. That is a measurement; an observation.

That the Earth rotates around the sun instead of vice versa is settled science.

No. That is an observation.

That certain acids of sufficient concentration eat metal is settled science.

No. That is an observation.

The atomic weight of the basic elements is settled science.

No. Those are observations. Curious which elements are the "basic" ones.

The freezing, melting, boiling temperature of various substances in specific circumstances is settled science.

No. Those are measurements; observations.

Nobody deserving of the label 'scientist' would ever say climate change is settled science when they have yet to make a single prediction or conclusion with any accuracy.

Thousands of scientists who definitely deserve the label say it is settled science. Again, the predictions that mainstream science has made about AGW have all come true. The predictions listed in various denier posts, tweets and articles are NOT the predictions of mainstream science and their failures are irrelevant. Please get that through your head. No actual climate scientist is going to make the sort of extreme, absolutist predictions you see in those lists. You are being lied to.

Certainly in those things in which what we don't know far exceeds what we do know, there is no settled science.

Here is a list of 10 examples of settled science which are controversial - many here will disagree that they are settled, but scientists would not.

1. Evolution Unites All of Biology
Evolution by natural selection is such a rock solid concept, that it is one of the ten greatest ideas in all of science. Opposition to the idea is particularly strong in the United States, which ranks near the bottom among westernized countries in terms of acceptance.

2. Animal Testing Is Necessary
While 93% of scientists were in favor of animal research, merely 52% of the public agrees. This is a “necessary evil” that is not considered controversial in the scientific community.

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Necessary
Those who object to embryonic stem cells often point to adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells as superior alternatives. But this isn’t necessarily true.

4. Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism
To call the supposed vaccine-autism link controversial is a gross mischaracterization. More appropriate descriptors are “incorrect,” “delusional,” “immoral,” and “crazier than Jack Nicholson in The Shining.”

5. Alternative Medicine Is Bunk
Sometimes, in the wake of alternative treatments, the body gets better on its own or through a placebo effect, giving rise to the powerful “It worked for me” response. Thus, ardent followers of sham medicine are born.

6. Large Hadron Collider Won’t Destroy Earth
Some people fear that particle collisions will give rise to black holes that will proceed to swallow the Earth. But to the best of our knowledge, this is impossible. As a physicist at Fermilab recently told Nautilus, if it were found that black holes could somehow form from particle collisions, that would be a revolutionary discovery. It might even merit a Nobel Prize!

7. Cold Fusion Isn’t Real
What if you could create fusion simply and safely, for an infinitesimal fraction of its current cost? Wouldn’t that be world changing?

Inventor Andrew Rossi consistently claims that he’s done it with his energy catalyzer or “E-Cat.” But while he has devised a cool-looking contraption that resembles an eighth grader’s aluminum foil-wrapped science project, and his device does seem to mysteriously produce heat, Rossi has not provided any information as to how his device works. Nor has he published any of his results in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

8. Nuclear Power Is Safe
Consider this: Outdoor air pollution kills 2 million people every single year. The risk from nuclear power pales in comparison.

9. Climate Change Is Largely Manmade
In 2010, a Gallup poll found that 50% of those surveyed thought that climate change was manmade, while 46% believed it was due to natural causes. Numbers like those indicate controversy. And yet, not a single reputable scientific body rejects the idea that climate change is manmade.

10. GMOs Are Safe

The public is bombarded with incorrect, and often blatantly dishonest, information about GMOs, or genetically-modified organisms.

10 Examples of Settled Science that Are 'Controversial'

Many Americans are being misled on serious scientific issues, and science journalists have to spend an inordinate amount of time debunking myths which seemingly never die.

bigthink.com

 

[Foxfyre]

Hardly

No. That is a measurement; an observation.

No. That is a measurement; an observation.

No. That is an observation.

No. That is an observation.

No. Those are observations. Curious which elements are the "basic" ones.

No. Those are measurements; observations.

Thousands of scientists who definitely deserve the label say it is settled science. Again, the predictions that mainstream science has made about AGW have all come true. The predictions listed in various denier posts, tweets and articles are NOT the predictions of mainstream science and their failures are irrelevant. Please get that through your head. No actual climate scientist is going to make the sort of extreme, absolutist predictions you see in those lists. You are being lied to.

Here is a list of 10 examples of settled science which are controversial - many here will disagree that they are settled, but scientists would not.

1. Evolution Unites All of Biology
Evolution by natural selection is such a rock solid concept, that it is one of the ten greatest ideas in all of science. Opposition to the idea is particularly strong in the United States, which ranks near the bottom among westernized countries in terms of acceptance.

2. Animal Testing Is Necessary
While 93% of scientists were in favor of animal research, merely 52% of the public agrees. This is a “necessary evil” that is not considered controversial in the scientific community.

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Necessary
Those who object to embryonic stem cells often point to adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells as superior alternatives. But this isn’t necessarily true.

4. Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism
To call the supposed vaccine-autism link controversial is a gross mischaracterization. More appropriate descriptors are “incorrect,” “delusional,” “immoral,” and “crazier than Jack Nicholson in The Shining.”

5. Alternative Medicine Is Bunk
Sometimes, in the wake of alternative treatments, the body gets better on its own or through a placebo effect, giving rise to the powerful “It worked for me” response. Thus, ardent followers of sham medicine are born.

6. Large Hadron Collider Won’t Destroy Earth
Some people fear that particle collisions will give rise to black holes that will proceed to swallow the Earth. But to the best of our knowledge, this is impossible. As a physicist at Fermilab recently told Nautilus, if it were found that black holes could somehow form from particle collisions, that would be a revolutionary discovery. It might even merit a Nobel Prize!

7. Cold Fusion Isn’t Real
What if you could create fusion simply and safely, for an infinitesimal fraction of its current cost? Wouldn’t that be world changing?

Inventor Andrew Rossi consistently claims that he’s done it with his energy catalyzer or “E-Cat.” But while he has devised a cool-looking contraption that resembles an eighth grader’s aluminum foil-wrapped science project, and his device does seem to mysteriously produce heat, Rossi has not provided any information as to how his device works. Nor has he published any of his results in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

8. Nuclear Power Is Safe
Consider this: Outdoor air pollution kills 2 million people every single year. The risk from nuclear power pales in comparison.

9. Climate Change Is Largely Manmade
In 2010, a Gallup poll found that 50% of those surveyed thought that climate change was manmade, while 46% believed it was due to natural causes. Numbers like those indicate controversy. And yet, not a single reputable scientific body rejects the idea that climate change is manmade.

10. GMOs Are Safe

The public is bombarded with incorrect, and often blatantly dishonest, information about GMOs, or genetically-modified organisms.

Flunked science in school did you? Oh well. I'm sure many still think you're lovable.

 

[Crick]

Flunked science in school did you? Oh well. I'm sure many still think you're lovable.

No, I aced most science. I have a bachelor's degree in Ocean Engineering. But school was a long time ago. I am retired now several years.