Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Cosmos and science ignorance

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, why don't you go back to bed. The grownups need to talk.

This is certainly a point worth discussion on AGW and any other scientific topic of public interest. What I see, however, when I look for arguments on this topic is some very widespread misunderstanding as to what many members of the public believe AGW is theorized to DO. That is, a great many people believe - or claim to believe - that AGW predicts things which it does not.

Climate scientists are not predicting that every piece of matter on the planet's surface, in its atmosphere or in its ocean is going to continually increase in temperature in lockstep with the atmospheric CO2 level. Both theoretically and observationally, warming from the Greenhouse effect is relatively weak and can be and has been overcome repeatedly by transient natural phenomena. The common complaint: that people who accept AGW have claimed it can be responsible for cooling as well as warming is simply false. AGW is simply easily overcome on a temporary basis and thus temporary cooling does not falsify it. The prediction here would be that a transient cause will be found for the hiatus and that warming will resume when former conditions resume. Now this particular point is actually moot. The measured radiative imbalance at the ToA and the increased rate of warming of the deep ocean show quite clearly that the EARTH'S TOTAL HEAT CONTENT IS STILL RISING. There has been no hiatus in warming. The only thing that has changed has been the locations where that heat energy ends up. This is actually off the topic of falsification, but I couldn't let such a faulty assumption go unchallenged.

As was noted in several of the articles I read on this topic, the crucial point is not whether or not warming is taking place (I won't go into how stupid you'd have to be to challenge the thousands and thousands of direct measurements that show that it has) it is whether or not that warming has been primarily anthropogenic.

Falsifiable predictions of AGW

1) Direct measurements of the radiative imbalances at the ToA will show that the Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating away (establishes radiative warming)
2) CO2, methane, ozone or other anthropogenic gases will be found to preferentially absorb IR radiation (establishes the Greenhouse Effect)
3) Humans will be found to be responsible for the vast majority (let's say 95%) of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 (establishes that human activity bears primary responsibility for the CO2-based Greenhouse warming since 1750)
4) By direct calculation, warming from anthropogenic GHGs will be found responsible for the majority (>50%) of the radiative forcing warming the planet (establishes predominance of Greenhouse warming over other effects)

Would anyone care to explain why any or all of these four predictions can't be falsified?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You take a political stance on science Frankie.


Instead of accepting our BEST information at the time you accept a political driven pack of fucking lies.



there is just no way around that

The Vostok Ice Cores, apolitical, show CO2 lagging temperature on the increase and decrease

all prove you wrong.

do you really think Lush Limpballs ass tastes that good that you will deny known science?

Put down the Purple Drank and take a look at the chart

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I have been told by four different deniers that AGW was not falsifiable. I have yet to get an explanation for that position. What's the hold up?

It basically means that no matter what happens, even things not directly involved with weather or climate, the warmers will claim that it is caused by global warming.

A friend sent me this one a couple years ago:

A complete list of things caused by global warming

 

[Truthmatters]

we are NOT warmers you fool.

We are following KNOWN science.

YOU are science deniers who do it for political reasons.


calling rational people phoney names doesn't make you on the side of reality.



YOU choose politics over science.


Your the fucking hack

 

[HelenaHandbag]

we are NOT warmers you fool.

We are following KNOWN science.

YOU are science deniers who do it for political reasons.


calling rational people phoney names doesn't make you on the side of reality.



YOU choose politics over science.


Your the fucking hack

You mean like "denialists"?

 

[skookerasbil]

You cant deny scientific consensus and then claim your on the side of science.


YOU are anti science.

THAT is your position of GW

Only the lefty nutter k00ks care about this stuff sweetie.........

Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.



Only on the radar of the fringe radicals who have to be hysterical about something ALL the time.


Folks are far, far more concerned about the massive size of the federal government......and about 15 other more pressing concerns.


Sorry for bursting your bubble but that seems to be what I do a lot around here.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who do the Vostok Ice Cores refuse to validate the AGWCult theory?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Neil?

Anyone?

Abraham?

Bueller?

 

[mamooth]

Frank, we're already know you're dumb enough to think that "But CO2 follows temp!" is a sensible argument. Non-'tards understand that, since conditions in the present are different, the present won't act like the past. So as Abe said, pipe down because the grownups are trying to talk.

And Helena, your friend was a 'tard for passing on his urban legend list to you, and you should be ashamed of falling for such nonsense. If you can't understand that warming means warming, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups either.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, we're already know you're dumb enough to think that "But CO2 follows temp!" is a sensible argument. Non-'tards understand that, since conditions in the present are different, the present won't act like the past. So as Abe said, pipe down because the grownups are trying to talk.

And Helena, your friend was a 'tard for passing on his urban legend list to you, and you should be ashamed of falling for such nonsense. If you can't understand that warming means warming, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups either.

LOL You think Modern CO2 is somehow different than that oldfangled CO2

LOL

That's hilarious not in the laughing-with sense either

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's how you handle dissenting opinions that alerts us that the Death-Worshipping AGWCult is truly dangerous

 

[bripat9643]

Neil deGrasse Tyson on "Cosmos," How Science Got Cool, and Why He Doesn't Debate Deniers | Mother Jones

Love this man and I think he's right about not "debating the deniers".

I'm certain you love everyone who reinforces your biases and prejudices.

In the article Tyson discusses why he doesn't debate people who deny evolution, not global warming, so the title of the thread is deliberately misleading.

Tyson is mostly just an administrator and TV personality. He's not some brilliant scientist. He knows very little about climate science - no more than the average educated layman.

 

[Iceweasel]

I was disappointed. With all the high tech we have now at least the first half of the show was Christian bashing. I don't recall that in the first series. We all know all kinds of stupid stuff went on in man's past, that's a separate series that could last forever.

He oddly enough failed to mention the at the term "Big Bang" was one of derision by Hoyle, I believe, mocking the author of the theory Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest and astrophysicist. The steady state model was the "consensus" of the day and the claim was that Georges was trying to fit science into his creation belief.

Maybe the showman forgot to bring it up?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I was disappointed. With all the high tech we have now at least the first half of the show was Christian bashing. I don't recall that in the first series. We all know all kinds of stupid stuff went on in man's past, that's a separate series that could last forever.

He oddly enough failed to mention the at the term "Big Bang" was one of derision by Hoyle, I believe, mocking the author of the theory Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest and astrophysicist. The steady state model was the "consensus" of the day and the claim was that Georges was trying to fit science into his creation belief.

Maybe the showman forgot to bring it up?

In his day, Sagan was derisive of Reagan's space based missile defense system

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZwzg85iZ_g]AEGIS Missile Defense System Completes Successful Intercept Flight Test (Test Footage) AiirSource - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Moonbats, what is different about today's CO2? More C? More O2?

 

[Iceweasel]

In his day, Sagan was derisive of Reagan's space based missile defense system.

Did he do it on Cosmos? It would be better to keep politics out of a science show, otherwise it's just another op-ed piece.

 

[bripat9643]

Frank, we're already know you're dumb enough to think that "But CO2 follows temp!" is a sensible argument. Non-'tards understand that, since conditions in the present are different, the present won't act like the past. So as Abe said, pipe down because the grownups are trying to talk.

And Helena, your friend was a 'tard for passing on his urban legend list to you, and you should be ashamed of falling for such nonsense. If you can't understand that warming means warming, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups either.

If today is "different from the past," then you can't use data from the past to support your theories about the present. AGW cult members want it both ways. They claim the Vostock cores support their theory of AGW, but when it's pointed out they do precisely the opposite, they claim the cores are irrelevant. THen they continue to claim their theory is based on empirical evidence.

What empirical evidence?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I was disappointed. With all the high tech we have now at least the first half of the show was Christian bashing. I don't recall that in the first series. We all know all kinds of stupid stuff went on in man's past, that's a separate series that could last forever.

He oddly enough failed to mention the at the term "Big Bang" was one of derision by Hoyle, I believe, mocking the author of the theory Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest and astrophysicist. The steady state model was the "consensus" of the day and the claim was that Georges was trying to fit science into his creation belief.

Maybe the showman forgot to bring it up?

I was disappointed in that it really had no focus or overall theme. It just seemed to skip along from topic to topic, without so much as the flimsiest of segues.

We will see what tonight's episode has in store.

 

[bripat9643]

In his day, Sagan was derisive of Reagan's space based missile defense system.

Did he do it on Cosmos? It would be better to keep politics out of a science show, otherwise it's just another op-ed piece.

Sagan was also a big proponent of the "nuclear winter" theory. All the numskulls who believed this theory were claiming at the beginning of the First Iraq war that if Saddam ignited the oil fields that nuclear winter would soon follow. Well, we all know what happened. There wasn't a detectable difference in the global climate after the conflagration. You didn't hear a peep out of these numskulls about nuclear winter after that.

Sagan was a fool, just as all leftists are fools.

 

[Abraham3]

In his day, Sagan was derisive of Reagan's space based missile defense system.

Did he do it on Cosmos? It would be better to keep politics out of a science show, otherwise it's just another op-ed piece.

Sagan was also a big proponent of the "nuclear winter" theory. All the numskulls who believed this theory were claiming at the beginning of the First Iraq war that if Saddam ignited the oil fields that nuclear winter would soon follow. Well, we all know what happened. There wasn't a detectable difference in the global climate after the conflagration. You didn't hear a peep out of these numskulls about nuclear winter after that.

Sagan was a fool, just as all leftists are fools.

What do you think happens when we have a major volcanic eruption Whizzo?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Frank, we're already know you're dumb enough to think that "But CO2 follows temp!" is a sensible argument. Non-'tards understand that, since conditions in the present are different, the present won't act like the past. So as Abe said, pipe down because the grownups are trying to talk.

And Helena, your friend was a 'tard for passing on his urban legend list to you, and you should be ashamed of falling for such nonsense. If you can't understand that warming means warming, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups either.

If you can't understand that warming means warming

Is that why you clowns started calling it "Climate Change", because warming means warming? LOL!